Albert G Mackey - His Complete Works

The Principles of
Masonic Law
A Treatise on the
Constitutional Laws

Usages and
Landmarks of
Freemasonry

Mackey, Albert G.

Release date: 2004-04-01
Source: Bebook

THE PRINCIPLES OF MASONIC LAW:

A Treatise on the Constitutional Laws,
Usages And Landmarks of Freemasonry,

By

Albert G. Mackey, M.D.,

Author of

"The Lexicon of Freemasonry," "The Mystic
Tie," "Legends and Traditions of
Freemasonry," Etc., Etc.,

Grand Lecturer and Grand Secretary of
The Grand Lodge of South Carolina;
Secretary General of the Supreme Council
of the Ancient and Accepted Rite for the
Southern Jurisdiction of the United States,
Etc., Etc., Etc.

"Est enim unum jus, quo devincta est
hominum societas, quod lex constituit
una; qudex est recta ratio imperandi atque
prohibendi, quam qui ignorat is est
injustus."

Cicero de Legibus. c. XV.

New York: Jno. W. Leonard & Co., Masonic
Publishers, 383 Broadway.

1856.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in
the year 1855, by Jno. W. Leonard & Co.,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of
the United States for the Southern District
of New York.

To

Brother J.J.J. Gourgas,

Sovereign Grand Inspector General in the
Supreme Council for the Northern
Jurisdiction of the United States,

I Dedicate This Work,

As a Slight Testimonial of My Friendship
and Esteem for Him As a Man, And of My
Profound Veneration for His Character As
a Mason; Whose Long and Useful Life Has
Been Well Spent in the Laborious
Prosecution of the Science, And the
Unremitting Conservation of the Principles
of Our Sublime Institution.

Table

of

Contents

Preface Introduction

Book First. The Law of Grand Lodges.

Chapter I. Historical Sketch. Chapter II. Of
the Mode of Organizing Grand Lodges.
Chapter III. Of the Members of a Grand
Lodge. Chapter IV. Of the Officers of a
Grand Lodge. Section I. Of the Grand
Master. Section II. The Deputy Grand
Master. Section III. Of the Grand

Wardens. Section IV. Of the Grand

Treasurer. Section V. Of the Grand

Secretary. Section VI. Of the Grand

Chaplain. Section VII. Of the Grand

Deacons. Section VIII. Of the Grand

Marshal. Section IX. Of the Grand

Stewards. Section X. Of the Grand

Sword-Bearer. Section XI. Of the Grand
Tiler. Chapter V. Of the Powers and
Prerogatives of a Grand Lodge. Section

I. General View.

Section II. Of the

Legislative Power of a Grand Lodge.
Section III. Of the Judicial Power of a Grand
Lodge. Section IV. Of the Executive
Power of a Grand Lodge.

Book Second. Laws of Subordinate Lodges.

Chapter I. Of the Nature and Organization
of Subordinate Lodges. Chapter II. Of
Lodges under Dispensation. Chapter III. Of
Lodges Working under a Warrant of
Constitution. Chapter IV. Of the Officers of
a Subordinate Lodge. Section I. Of the
Officers in General. Section II. Of the
Worshipful Master. Section III. Of the
Wardens. Section IV. Of the Treasurer.
Section V. Of the Secretary. Section VI.
Of the Deacons. Section VII. Of the
Stewards. Section VIII. Of the Tiler.
Chapter V. Of Rules of Order. Section I.

Of the Order of Business. Section II. Of
Appeals from the Decision of the Chair.
Section III. Of the Mode of Taking the
Question. Section IV. Of Adjournments.

Section V. Of the Appointment of
Committees. Section VI. Of the Mode of
Keeping the Minutes.

Book Third. The Law of Individuals.

Chapter I. Of the Qualifications of
Candidates. Section I. Of the Moral
Qualifications of Candidates. Section II.
Of the Physical Qualifications of
Candidates. Section III. Of the

Intellectual Qualifications of Candidates.
Section IV. Of the Political Qualifications of
Candidates. Section V. Of the Petition of
Candidates for Admission, and the
Action Thereon. Section VI. Of Balloting
for Candidates. Section VII. Of the

Reconsideration of the Ballot.

Section

VIII. Of the Renewal of Applications by

Rejected Candidates.

Section IX. Of the

Necessary Probation and Due Proficiency

of

Candidates before

Advancement Section X. Of Balloting for

Candidates in each Degree.

Section XI.

Of the Number to be Initiated at one

Communication.

Section XII. Of

Finishing the Candidates of one Lodge in

another.

Section XIII. Of the Initiation of

Non-residents. Chapter II. Of the Rights of
Entered Apprentices. Chapter III. Of the
Rights of Fellow Crafts. Chapter IV. Of the
Rights of Master Masons. Section I. Of
the Right of Membership,
the Right of Visit.

Examination of Visitors.

Section II. Of

Section III. Of the
Section IV. Of

Vouching for a Brother. Section V. Of the

Right of Claiming Relief.

Section VI. Of

the Right of Masonic Burial. Chapter V. Of
the Rights of Past Masters. Chapter VI. Of

Affiliation. Chapter VII. Of Demitting.
Chapter VIII. Of Unaffiliated Masons.

Book Fourth. Of Masonic Crimes and
Punishments.

Chapter I. Of What Are Masonic Crimes.
Chapter II. Of Masonic Punishments.
Section I. Of Censure. Section II. Of
Reprimand. Section III. Of Exclusion

from the Lodge. Section IV. Of Definite
Suspension. Section V. Of Indefinite

Suspension. Section VI. Of Expulsion.
Chapter III. Of Masonic Trials. Section I.
Of the Form of Trial. Section II. Of the
Evidence in Masonic Trials. Chapter IV. Of
the Penal Jurisdiction of a Lodge. Chapter
V. Of Appeals. Chapter VI. Of Restoration.

Index.

Footnotes.

Preface.

In presenting to the fraternity a work on
the Principles of Masonic Law, it is due to
those for whom it is intended, that
something should be said of the design
with which it has been written, and of the
plan on which it has been composed. It is
not pretended to present to the craft an
encyclopedia of jurisprudence, in which
every question that can possibly arise, in
the transactions of a Lodge, is decided
with an especial reference to its particular
circumstances. Were the accomplishment
of such an herculean task possible, except
after years of intense and unremitting
labor, the unwieldy size of the book
produced, and the heterogeneous nature
of its contents, so far from inviting, would
rather tend to distract attention, and the
object of communicating a knowledge of
the Principles of Masonic Law, would be
lost in the tedious collation of precedents,
arranged without scientific system, and

enunciated without explanation.

When I first contemplated the composition
of a work on this subject, a distinguished
friend and Brother, whose opinion I much
respect, and with whose advice I am
always anxious to comply, unless for the
most satisfactory reasons, suggested the
expediency of collecting the decisions of
all Grand Masters, Grand Lodges, and
other masonic authorities upon every
subject of Masonic Law, and of presenting
them, without commentary, to the
fraternity.

But a brief examination of this method, led
me to perceive that I would be thus
constructing simply a digest of decrees,
many of which would probably be the
results of inexperience, of prejudice, or of
erroneous views of the masonic system,
and from which the authors themselves

have, in repeated instances, subsequently
receded— for Grand Masters and Grand
Lodges, although entitled to great respect,
are not infallible— and I could not,
conscientiously, have consented to assist,
without any qualifying remark, in the
extension and perpetuation of edicts and
opinions, which, however high the
authority from which they emanated, I did
not believe to be in accordance with the
principles of Masonic jurisprudence.

Another inconvenience which would have
attended the adoption of such a method is,
that the decisions of different Grand
Lodges and Grand Masters are sometimes
entirely contradictory on the same points
of Masonic Law. The decree of one
jurisdiction, on any particular question,
will often be found at variance with that of
another, while a third will differ from both.
The consultor of a work, embracing within

its pages such distracting judgments,
unexplained by commentary, would be in
doubt as to which decision he should
adopt, so that coming to the inspection
with the desire of solving a legal question,
he would be constrained to close the
volume, in utter despair of extracting truth
or information from so confused a mass of
contradictions.

This plan I therefore at once abandoned.
But knowing that the jurisprudence of
Masonry is founded, like all legal science,
on abstract principles, which govern and
control its entire system, I deemed it to be
a better course to present these principles
to my readers in an elementary and
methodical treatise, and to develop from
them those necessary deductions which
reason and common sense would justify.

Hence it is that I have presumed to call this

work "The Principles of Masonic Law." It is
not a code of enactments, nor a collection
of statutes, nor yet a digest of opinions; but
simply an elementary treatise, intended to
enable every one who consults it, with
competent judgment, and ordinary
intelligence, to trace for himself the
bearings of the law upon any question
which he seeks to investigate, and to form,
for himself, a correct opinion upon the
merits of any particular case.

Blackstone, whose method of teaching I
have endeavored, although I confess "ab
longo inter-vallo," to pursue, in speaking
of what an academical expounder of the
law should do, says:

"He should consider his course as a
general map of the law, marking out the
shape of the country, its connections, and
boundaries, its greater divisions, and

principal cities; it is not his business to
describe minutely the subordinate limits,
or to fix the longitude and latitude of every
inconsiderable hamlet."

Such has been the rule that has governed
me in the compilation of this work. But in
delineating this "general map" of the
Masonic Law, I have sought, if I may
continue the metaphor, so to define
boundaries, and to describe countries, as
to give the inspector no difficulty in
"locating" (to use an Americanism) any
subordinate point. I have treated, it is true,
of principles, but I have not altogether lost
sight of cases.

There are certain fundamental laws of the
Institution, concerning which there never
has been any dispute, and which have
come down to us with all the sanctions of
antiquity, and universal acceptation. In

announcing these, I have not always
thought it necessary to defend their
justice, or to assign a reason for their
enactment.

The weight of unanimous authority has, in
these instances, been deemed sufficient to
entitle them to respect, and to obedience.

But on all other questions, where authority
is divided, or where doubts of the
correctness of my decision might arise, I
have endeavored, by a course of argument
as satisfactory as I could command, to
assign a reason for my opinions, and to
defend and enforce my views, by a
reference to the general principles of
jurisprudence, and the peculiar character
of the masonic system. I ask, and should
receive no deference to my own
unsupported theories— as a man, I am, of
course, fallible— and may often have

decided erroneously. But I do claim for my
arguments all the weight and influence of
which they may be deemed worthy, after
an attentive and unprejudiced
examination. To those who may at first be
ready— because I do not agree with all
their preconceived opinions— to doubt or
deny my conclusions, I would say, in the
language of Themistocles, "Strike, but hear
me."

Whatever may be the verdict passed upon
my labors by my Brethren, I trust that some
clemency will be extended to the errors
into which I may have fallen, for the sake of
the object which I have had in view: that,
namely, of presenting to the Craft an
elementary work, that might enable every
Mason to know his rights, and to learn his
duties.

The intention was, undoubtedly, a good

one. How it has been executed, it is not for
me, but for the masonic public to
determine.

Albert G. Mackey.

Charleston, S.C., January 1st.,

1856.

Introduction.

The

Authorities for Masonic

Law.

The laws which govern the institution of
Freemasonry are of two kinds, _unwritten_
and _written,_ and may in a manner be
compared with the "lex non scripta," or
common law, and the "lex seripta," or
statute law of English and American jurists.

The "lex non scripta," or _unwritten law_ of
Freemasonry is derived from the
traditions, usages and customs of the
fraternity as they have existed from the
remotest antiquity, and as they are
universally admitted by the general
consent of the members of the Order. In
fact, we may apply to these unwritten laws
of Masonry the definition given by
Blackstone of the "leges non script □ of the
English constitution— that "their original
institution and authority are not set down
in writing, as acts of parliament are, but
they receive their binding power, and the
force of laws, by long and immemorial

usage and by their universal reception
throughout the kingdom." When, in the
course of this work, I refer to these
unwritten laws as authority upon any point,
I shall do so under the appropriate
designation of "ancient usage."

The "lex scripta," or written law of
Masonry, is derived from a variety of
sources, and was framed at different
periods. The following documents I deem
of sufficient authority to substantiate any
principle, or to determine any disputed
question in masonic law.

1. The "Ancient Masonic charges, from a
manuscript of the Lodge of Antiquity, " and
said to have been written in the reign of
James II. [1]

2. The regulations adopted at the General
Assembly held in 1663, of which the Earl of

St. Albans was Grand Master. [2]

3. The interrogatories propounded to the
Master of a lodge at the time of his
installation, and which, from their
universal adoption, without alteration, by
the whole fraternity, are undoubtedly to be
considered as a part of the fundamental
law of Masonry.

4. "The Charges of a Freemason, extracted
from the Ancient Records of Lodges
beyond sea, and of those in England,
Scotland, and Ireland, for the use of the
Lodges in London," printed in the first
edition of the Book of Constitutions, and to
be found from p. 49 to p. 56 of that
work. [3]

5. The thirty-nine "General Regulations,"
adopted "at the annual assembly and feast
held at Stationers' hall on St. John the

Baptist's day, 1721," and which were
published in the first edition of the Book of
Constitutions, p. 58 to p.

6. The subsequent regulations adopted at
various annual communications by the
Grand Lodge of England, up to the year
1769, and published in different editions of
the Book of Constitutions. These, although
not of such paramount importance and
universal acceptation as the Old Charges
and the Thirty-nine Regulations, are,
nevertheless, of great value as the means
of settling many disputed questions, by
showing what was the law and usage of the
fraternity at the times in which they were
adopted.

Soon after the publication of the edition of
1769 of the Book of Constitutions, the
Grand Lodges of America began to
separate from their English parent and to

organize independent jurisdictions. From
that period, the regulations adopted by the
Grand Lodge of England ceased to have
any binding efficacy over the craft in this
country, while the laws passed by the
American Grand Lodges lost the character
of general regulations, and were invested
only with local authority in their several
jurisdictions.

Before concluding this introductory
section, it may be deemed necessary that
something should be said of the "Ancient
Landmarks of the Order," to which
reference is so often made.

Various definitions have been given of the
landmarks. Some suppose them to be
constituted of all the rules and regulations
which were in existence anterior to the

revival of Masonry in 1717, and which
were confirmed and adopted by the Grand

Lodge of England at that time. Others,
more stringent in their definition, restrict
them to the modes of recognition in use
among the fraternity. I am disposed to
adopt a middle course, and to define the
Landmarks of Masonry to be, all those
usages and customs of the craft— whether
ritual or legislative— whether they relate to
forms and ceremonies, or to the
organization of the society— which have
existed from time immemorial, and the
alteration or abolition of which would
materially affect the distinctive character
of the institution or destroy its identity.
Thus, for example, among the legislative
landmarks, I would enumerate the office of
Grand Master as the presiding officer over
the craft, and among the ritual landmarks,
the legend of the third degree. But the
laws, enacted from time to time by Grand
Lodges for their local government, no
matter how old they may be, do not

constitute landmarks, and may, at any
time, be altered or expunged, since the
39th regulation declares expressly that
"every annual Grand Lodge has an
inherent power and authority to make new
regulations or to alter these (viz., the
thirty-nine articles) for the real benefit of
this ancient fraternity, provided always
that the old landmarks be carefully
preserved."

Book First

The Law of Grand

Lodges.

It is proposed in this Book, first to present
the reader with a brief historical sketch of
the rise and progress of the system of
Grand Lodges; and then to explain, in the
subsequent sections, the mode in which
such bodies are originally organized, who
constitute their officers and members, and

what are their
prerogatives.

Chapter I.

Historical Sketch.

Grand Lodges under their present
organization, are, in respect to the
antiquity of the Order, of a comparatively
modern date. We hear of no such bodies in
the earlier ages of the institution. Tradition
informs us, that originally it was governed
by the despotic authority of a few chiefs. At
the building of the temple, we have reason
to believe that King Solomon exercised an
unlimited and irresponsible control over
the craft, although a tradition (not,
however, of undoubted authority) says that
he was assisted in his government by the
counsel of twelve superintendents,
selected from the twelve tribes of Israel.
But we know too little, from authentic
materials, of the precise system adopted at

that remote period, to enable us to make
any historical deductions on the subject.

The first historical notice that we have of
the formation of a supreme controlling
body of the fraternity, is in the "Gothic
Constitutions" [4] which assert that, in the
year 287, St. Alban, the protomartyr of
England, who was a zealous patron of the
craft, obtained from Carausius, the British
Emperor, "a charter for the Masons to hold
a general council, and gave it the name of
assembly." The record further states, that

St. Alban attended the meeting and
assisted in making Masons, giving them
"good charges and regulations." We know
not, however, whether this assembly ever
met again; and if it did, for how many
years it continued to exist. The subsequent
history of Freemasonry is entirely silent on
the subject.

The next general assemblage of the craft,
of which the records of Freemasonry
inform us, was that convened in 926, at the
city of York, in England, by Prince Edwin,
the brother of King Athelstane, and the
grandson of Alfred the Great. This, we say,
was the next general assemblage, because
the Ashmole manuscript, which was
destroyed at the revival of Freemasonry in
1717, is said to have stated that, at that
time, the Prince obtained from his brother,
the king, a permission for the craft "to hold
a yearly communication and a general
assembly." The fact that such a power of
meeting was then granted, is conclusive
that it did not before exist: and would
seem to prove that the assemblies of the
craft, authorised by the charter of
Carausius, had long since ceased to be
held. This yearly communication did not,
however, constitute, at least in the sense
we now understand it, a Grand Lodge. The

name given to it was that of the "General
Assembly of Masons." It was not restricted,
as now, to the Masters and Wardens of the
subordinate lodges, acting in the capacity
of delegates or representatives, but was
composed, as Preston has observed, of as
many of the fraternity at large as, being
within a convenient distance, could attend
once or twice a year, under the auspices of
one general head, who was elected and
installed at one of these meetings, and
who, for the time being, received homage
as the governor of the whole body. Any
Brethren who were competent to
discharge the duty, were allowed, by the
regulations of the Order, to open and hold
lodges at their discretion, at such times
and places as were most convenient to
them, and without the necessity of what we
now call a Warrant of Constitution, and
then and there to initiate members into the
Order. [5] To the General Assembly,

however, all the craft, without distinction,
were permitted to repair; each Mason
present was entitled to take part in the
deliberations,

and

the

rules

and

regulations enacted were the result of the
votes of the whole body. The General
Assembly was, in fact, precisely similar to
those political congregations which, in our
modern phraseology, we term "mass
meetings."

These annual mass meetings or General
Assemblies continued to be held, for many
centuries after their first establishment, at
the city of York, and were, during all that
period, the supreme judicatory of the
fraternity. There are frequent references to
the annual assemblies of Freemasons in
public documents. The preamble to an act
passed in 1425, during the reign of Henry
VI., just five centuries after the meeting at
York, states that, "by the _yearly

congregations_ and confederacies made
by the Masons in their _general
assemblies, _ the good course and effect of
the statute of laborers were openly
violated and broken." This act which
forbade such meetings, was, however,
never put in force; for an old record,
quoted in the Book of Constitutions, speaks
of the Brotherhood having frequented this
"mutual assembly," in 1434, in the reign of
the same king. We have another record of
the General Assembly, which was held in
York on the 27th December, 1561, when
Queen Elizabeth, who was suspicious of
their secrecy, sent an armed force to
dissolve the meeting. A copy is still
preserved of the regulations which were
adopted by a similar assembly held in
1663, on the festival of St. John the
Evangelist; and in these regulations it is
declared that the private lodges shall give
an account of all their acceptations made

during the year to the General Assembly.
Another regulation, however, adopted at
the same time, still more explicitly
acknowledges the existence of a General
Assembly as the governing body of the
fraternity. It is there provided, "that for the
future, the said fraternity of Freemasons
shall be regulated and governed by one
Grand Master and as many Wardens as the
said society shall think fit to appoint at
every Annual General Assembly. "

And thus the interests of the institution
continued, until the beginning of the
eighteenth century, or for nearly eight
hundred years, to be entrusted to those
General Assemblies of the fraternity, who,
without distinction of rank or office,
annually met at York to legislate for the
oovernment of the craft.

But in 1717, a new organization of the

governing head was adopted, which gave
birth to the establishment of a Grand
Lodge, in the form in which these bodies
now exist. So important a period in the
history of Masonry demands our special
attention.

After the death, in 1702, of King William,
who was himself a Mason, and a great
patron of the craft, the institution began to
languish, the lodges decreased in number,
and the General Assembly was entirely
neglected for many years. A few old
lodges continued, it is true, to meet
regularly, but they consisted of only a few
members.

At length, on the accession of George I.,
the Masons of London and its vicinity
determined to revive the annual
communications of the society. There were
at that time only four lodges in the south of

England, and the members of these, with
several old Brethren, met in February,
1717, at the Apple Tree Tavern, in Charles
street, Covent Garden, and organized by
putting the oldest Master Mason, who was
the Master of a lodge, in the chair; they
then constituted themselves into what
Anderson calls, "a Grand Lodge _pro
tempore; resolved to hold the annual
assembly and feast, and then to choose a
Grand Master.

Accordingly, on the 24th of June, 1717, the
assembly and feast were held; and the
oldest Master of a lodge being in the chair,
a list of candidates was presented, out of
which Mr. Anthony Sayer was elected
Grand Master, and Capt. Joseph Elliott and
Mr. Jacob Lamball, Grand Wardens.

The Grand Master then commanded the
Masters and Wardens of lodges to meet

the Grand Officers every quarter, in
communication, at the place he should
appoint in his summons sent by the Tiler.

This

was,

then,

undoubtedly,

the

commencement of that organization of the
Masters and Wardens of lodges into a
Grand Lodge, which has ever since
continued to exist.

The fraternity at large, however, still
continued to claim the right of being
present at the annual assembly; and, in
fact, at that meeting, their punctual
attendance at the next annual assembly
and feast was recommended.

At the same meeting, it was resolved "that
the privilege of assembling as Masons,
which had been hitherto unlimited, should
be vested in certain lodges or assemblies
of Masons convened in certain places; and

that every lodge to be hereafter convened,
except the four old lodges at this time
existing, should be legally authorized to
act by a warrant from the Grand Master for
the time being, granted to certain
individuals by petition, with the consent
and approbation of the Grand Lodge in
communication; and that, without such
warrant, no lodge should be hereafter
deemed regular or constitutional."

In consequence of this regulation, several

new lodges received Warrants

of

Constitution, and their Masters and
Wardens were ordered to attend the
communications of the Grand Lodge. The
Brethren at large vested all their privileges
in the four old lodges, in trust that they
would never suffer the old charges and
landmarks to be infringed; and the old
lodges, in return, agreed that the Masters
and Wardens of every new lodge that

might be constituted, should be permitted
to share with them all the privileges of the
Grand Lodge, except precedence of rank.
The Brethren, says Preston, considered
their further attendance at the meetings of
the society unnecessary after these
regulations were adopted; and therefore
trusted implicitly to their Masters and
Wardens for the government of the craft;
and thenceforward the Grand Lodge has
been composed of all the Masters and
Wardens of the subordinate lodges which
constitute the jurisdiction.

The ancient right of the craft, however, to
take a part in the proceedings of the Grand
Lodge or Annual Assembly, was fully
acknowledged by a new regulation,
adopted about the same time, in which it is
declared that all alterations of the
Constitutions must be proposed and
agreed to, at the third quarterly

communication preceding the annual
feast, and be offered also to the perusal of
_all_ the Brethren before dinner, _even of
the youngest Entered Apprentice_[6]

This regulation has, however, (I know not
by what right,) become obsolete, and the
Annual Assembly of Masons has long
ceased to be held; the Grand Lodges
having, since the beginning of the
eighteenth century, assumed the form and
organization which they still preserve, as
strictly representative bodies.

Chapter II.

Of the Mode of Organizing Grand Lodges

The topic to be discussed in this section is,
the answer to the question, How shall a
Grand Lodge be established in any state
or country where such a body has not
previously existed, but where there are

subordinate

lodges

working under

Warrants derived from Grand Lodges in
other states? In answering this question, it
seems proper that I should advert to the
course pursued by the original Grand
Lodge of England, at its establishment in
1717, as from that body nearly all the
Grand Lodges of the York rite now in
existence derive their authority, either
directly or indirectly, and the mode of its
organization has, therefore, universally
been admitted to have been regular and
legitimate.

In the first place, it is essentially requisite
that the active existence of subordinate
lodges in a state should precede the

formation of a Grand Lodge; for the former
are the only legitimate sources of the
latter. A mass meeting of Masons cannot
assemble and organize a Grand Lodge. A
certain number of lodges, holding legal
warrants from a Grand Lodge or from
different Grand Lodges, must meet by
their representatives and proceed to the
formation of a Grand Lodge. When that
process has been accomplished, the
subordinate lodges return the warrants,
under which they had theretofore worked,
to the Grand Lodges from which they had
originally received them, and take new
ones from the body which they have
formed.

That a mass meeting of the fraternity of any
state is incompetent to organize a Grand
Lodge has been definitively settled— not
only by general usage, but by the express
action of the Grand Lodcres of the United

States which refused to recognize, in 1842,
the Grand Lodge of Michigan which had
been thus irregularly established in the
preceding year. That unrecognized body
was then dissolved by the Brethren of
Michigan, who proceeded to establish four
subordinate lodges under Warrants
granted by the Grand Lodge of New York.
These four lodges subsequently met in

convention and organized the present
Grand Lodge of Michigan in a regular

manner.

It seems, however, to have been settled in
the case of Vermont, that where a Grand
Lodge has been dormant for many years,
and all of its subordinates extinct, yet if
any of the Grand Officers, last elected,
survive and are present, they may revive
the Grand Lodge and proceed
constitutionally to the exercise of its
prerogatives.

The next inquiry is, as to the number of
lodges required to organize a new Grand
Lodge. Dalcho says that _five_ lodges are
necessary; and in this opinion he is
supported by the Ahiman Rezon of
Pennsylvania, published in 1783 by
William Smith, D.D., at that time the Grand
Secretary of that jurisdiction, and also by
some other authorities. But no such
regulation is to be found in the Book of
Constitutions, which is now admitted to
contain the fundamental law of the
institution. Indeed, its adoption would
have been a condemnation of the legality
of the Mother Grand Lodge of England,
which was formed in 1717 by the union of
only _four_ lodges. The rule, however, is
to be found in the Ahiman Rezon of
Laurence Dermott, which was adopted by
the "Grand Lodge of Ancient Freemasons,"
that seceded from the lawful Grand Lodcre

in 1738. But as that body was undoubtedly,
under our present views of masonic law,
schismatic and illegal, its regulations have
never been considered by masonic writers
as being possessed of any authority.

In the absence of any written law upon the
subject, we are compelled to look to
precedent for authority; and, although the
Grand Lodges in the United States have

seldom

been

established

with

representation of less than four lodges, the
fact that that of Texas was organized in
1837 by the representatives of only
_three_ lodges, and that the Grand Lodge
thus instituted was at once recognized as
legal and regular by all its sister Grand
Lodges, seems to settle the question that
three subordinates are sufficient to
institute a Grand Lodge.

Three lodges, therefore, in any territory

where a Grand Lodge does not already
exist, may unite in convention and
organize a Grand Lodge. It will then be
necessary, that these lodges should
surrender the warrants under which they
had been previously working, and take out
new warrants from the Grand Lodge which
they have constituted; and, from that time
forth, all masonic authority is vested in the
Grand Lodge thus formed.

The Grand Lodge having been thus
constituted, the next inquiries that suggest
themselves are as to its members and its
officers, each of which questions will
occupy a distinct discussion.

Chapter III.

Of the Members of a Grand Lodcre.

It is an indisputable fact that the "General
Assembly" which met at York in 926 was
composed of all the members of the
fraternity who chose to repair to it; and it is
equally certain that, at the first Grand
Lodge, held in 1717, after the revival of
Masonry, all the craft who were present
exercised the right of membership in
voting for Grand Officers, [7] and must,
therefore, have been considered members
of the Grand Lodge. The right does not,
however, appear to have been afterwards
claimed. At this very assembly, the Grand
Master who had been elected, summoned
only the Master and Wardens of the lodges
to meet him in the quarterly
communications; and Preston distinctly
states, that soon after, the Brethren of the
four old lodges, which had constituted the
Grand Lodge, considered their attendance
on the future communications of the
society unnecessary, and therefore

concurred with the lodges which had been
subsequently warranted in delegating the
power of representation to their Masters
and Wardens, "resting satisfied that no
measure of importance would be adopted
without their approbation."

Any doubts upon the subject were,
however, soon put at rest by the enactment
of a positive law. In 1721, thirty-nine
articles for the future government of the
craft were approved and confirmed, the
twelfth of which was in the following
words:

"The Grand Lodge consists of, and is
formed by, the Masters and Wardens of all
the regular particular lodges upon record,
with the Grand Master at their head, and
his Deputy on his left hand, and the Grand
Wardens in their proper places."

From time to time, the number of these
constituents of a Grand Lodge were
increased by the extension of the
qualifications for membership. Thus, in
1724, Past Grand Masters, and in 1725,
Past Deputy Grand Masters, were admitted
as members of the Grand Lodge. Finally it
was decreed that the Grand Lodge should
consist of the four present and all past
grand officers; the Grand Treasurer,
Secretary, and Sword-Bearer; the Master,
Wardens, and nine assistants of the Grand
Stewards' lodge, and the Masters and
Wardens of all the regular lodges.

Past Masters were not at first admitted as
members of the Grand Lodge. There is no
recognition of them in the old

them

m

the

old

Constitutions. Walworth thinks it must have

been after 1772 that they were
introduced. [8] I have extended my
researches to some years beyond that

period, without any success in finding their
recognition as members under the
Constitution of England. It is true that, in
1772, Dermott prefixed a note to his
edition of the Ahiman Rezon, in which he
asserts that "Past Masters of warranted
lodges on record are allowed this
privilege (of membership) whilst they
continue to be members of any regular
lodge." And it is, doubtless, on this
imperfect authority, that the Grand Lodges
of America began at so early a period to
admit their Past Masters to seats in the
Grand Lodge. In the authorized Book of
Constitutions, we find no such provision.
Indeed, Preston records that in 1808, at the
laying of the foundation-stone of the
Covent Garden Theatre, by the Prince of
Wales, as Grand Master, "the Grand Lodge
was opened by Charles Marsh, Esq.,
attended by the _Masters and Wardens_ of
all the regular lodges;" and, throughout

the description of the ceremonies, no
notice is taken of Past Masters as forming
any part of the Grand Lodge. The first
notice that we have been enabled to
obtain of Past Masters, as forming any part
of the Grand Lodge of England, is in the
"Articles of Union between the two Grand
Lodges of England," adopted in 1813,
which declare that the Grand Lodge shall
consist of the Grand and Past Grand
Officers, of the actual Masters and
Wardens of all the warranted lodges, and
of the "Past Masters of Lodges who have
regularly served and passed the chair
before the day of Union, and who
continued, without secession, regular
contributing members of a warranted
lodge." But it is provided, that after the
decease of all these ancient Past Masters,
the representation of every lodge shall
consist of its Master and Wardens, and one
Past Master only. There is, I presume, no

doubt that, from 1772, Past Masters had
held a seat in the Athol Grand Lodge of
Ancient Masons, and that they did not in
the original Grand Lodge, is, I believe, a
fact equally indisputable. By the present
constitutions of the United Grand Lodge of
England, Past Masters are members of the
Grand Lodge, while they continue
subscribing members of a private lodge.
In some of the Grand Lodges of the United
States, Past Masters have been permitted
to retain their membership, while in
others, they have been disfranchised.

On the whole, the result of this inquiry
seems to be, that Past Masters have no
inherent right, derived from the ancient
landmarks, to a seat in the Grand Lodge;
but as every Grand Lodge has the power,
within certain limits, to make regulations
for its own government, it may or may not
admit them to membership, according to

its own notion of expediency.

Some of the Grand Lodges have not only
disfranchised Past Masters but Wardens
also, and restricted membership only to
acting Masters. This innovation has arisen
from the fact that the payment of mileage
and expenses to three representative
would entail a heavy burden on the
revenue of the Grand Lodge. The reason
may have been imperative; but in the
practice, pecuniary expediency has been
made to override an ancient usage.

In determining, then, who are the
constitutional members of a Grand Lodge,
deriving their membership from inherent
right, I should say that they are the Masters
and Wardens of all regular lodges in the
jurisdiction, with the Grand Officers
chosen by them. All others, who by local
regulations are made members, are so

only by courtesy, and not by prescription
or ancient law.

Chapter IV.

Of the Officers of a Grand Lodge.

The officers of a Grand Lodge may be
divided into two classes, _essential_ and
_accidental_, or, as they are more usually
called, _Grand_ and _Subordinate_. The
former of these classes are, as the name
imports, essential to the composition of a
Grand Lodge, and are to be found in every
jurisdiction, having existed from the
earliest times. They are the Grand and
Deputy Grand Masters, the Grand
Wardens, Grand Treasurer, and Grand
Secretary. The Grand Chaplain is also
enumerated among the Grand Officers,
but the office is of comparatively modern
date.

The subordinate officers of a Grand Lodge
consist of the Deacons, Marshal,
Pursuivant, or Sword-Bearer, Stewards,
and others, whose titles and duties vary in
different jurisdictions. I shall devote a
separate section to the consideration of the

duties of each and prerogatives of these
officers.

Section I.

Of the Grand Master.

The office of Grand Master of Masons has
existed from the very origin of the
institution; for it has always been
necessary that the fraternity should have a
presiding head. There have been periods
in the history of the institution when
neither Deputies nor Grand Wardens are
mentioned, but there is no time in its
existence when it was without a Grand
Master; and hence Preston, while speaking
of that remote era in which the fraternity
was governed by a General Assembly,
says that this General Assembly or Grand
Lodge "was not then restricted, as it is now
understood to be, to the Masters and
Wardens of private lodges, with the Grand
Master and his Wardens at their head; it

consisted of as many of the Fraternity _at
large_ as, being within a convenient
distance, could attend, once or twice in a
year, under the auspices of one general
head, who was elected and installed at one
of these meetings; and who for the time
being received homage as the sole
governor of the whole body." [9] The office
is one of great honour as well as power,
and has generally been conferred upon
some individual distinguished by an
influential position in society; so that his
rank and character might reflect credit
upon the craft. [10]

The Grand Mastership is an elective office,
the election being annual and
accompanied with impressive ceremonies
of proclamation and homage made to him
by the whole craft. Uniform usage, as well
as the explicit declaration of the General
Regulations, [ 1 1] seems to require that he

should be installed by the last Grand
Master. But in his absence the Deputy or
some Past Grand Master may exercise the
functions of installation or investiture. In
the organization of a new Grand Lodge,
ancient precedent and the necessity of the
thing will authorize the performance of the
installation by the Master of the oldest
lodge present, who, however, exercises,
_pro hac vice_, the prerogatives and
assumes the place of a Grand Master.

The Grand Master possesses a great
variety of prerogatives, some of which are
derived from the "lex non scripta," or
ancient usage; and others from the written
or statute law of Masonry. [12]

I. He has the right to convene the Grand
Lodge whenever he pleases, and to
preside over its deliberation. In the
decision of all questions by the Grand

Lodge he is entitled to two votes. This is a
privilege secured to him by Article XII. of
the General Regulations.

It seems now to be settled, by ancient
usage as well as the expressed opinion of
the generality of Grand Lodges and of
masonic writers, that there is no appeal
from his decision. In June, 1849, the Grand
Master of New York, Bro. Williard,
declared an appeal to be out of order and
refused to submit it to the Grand Lodge.
The proceedings on that eventful occasion
have been freely discussed by the Grand
Lodges of the United States, and none of
them have condemned the act of the
Grand Master, while several have
sustained it in express terms. "An appeal,"
say the Committee of Correspondence of
Maryland, "from the decision of the Grand
Master is an anomaly at war with every
principle of Freemasonry, and as such, not

for a moment to be tolerated or
countenanced."[13] This opinion is also
sustained by the Committee of the Grand
Lodge of Florida in the year 1851, and at
various times by other Grand Lodges. On
the other hand, several Grand Lodges
have made decisions adverse to this
prerogative, and the present regulations of
the Grand Lodge of England seem, by a
fair interpretation of their phraseology, to
admit of an appeal from the Grand Master.
Still the general opinion of the craft in this
country appears to sustain the doctrine,
that no appeal can be made from the
decision of that officer. And this doctrine
has derived much support in the way of
analogy from the report adopted by the
General Grand Chapter of the United
States, declaring that no appeal could lie
from the decision of the presiding officer
of any Royal Arch body.

Since we have enunciated this doctrine as
masonic law, the question next arises, in
what manner shall the Grand Master be
punished, should he abuse his great
prerogative? The answer to this question
admits of no doubt. It is to be found in a
regulation, adopted in 1721, by the Grand
Lodge of England, and is in these
words:— "If the Grand Master should abuse
his great power, and render himself
unworthy of the obedience and submission
of the Lodges, he shall be treated in a way
and manner to be agreed upon in a new
regulation." But the same series of
regulations very explicitly prescribe, how
this new regulation is to be made; namely,
it is to be "proposed and agreed to at the
third quarterly communication preceding
the annual Grand Feast, and offered to the
perusal of all the Brethren before dinner,
in writing, even of the youngest entered
apprentice; the approbation and consent

of the majority of all the Brethren present
being absolutely necessary, to make the
same binding and obligatory."[14] This
mode of making a new regulation is
explicitly and positively prescribed— it can
be done in no other way— and those who
accept the old regulations as the law of
Masonry, must accept this provision with
them. This will, in the present organization
of many Grand Lodges, render it almost
impracticable to make such a new
regulation, in which case the Grand Master
must remain exempt from other
punishment for his misdeeds, than that
which arises from his own conscience, and
the loss of his Brethren's regard and
esteem.

II. The power of granting dispensations is
one of the most important prerogatives of
the Grand Master. A dispensation may be
defined to be an exemption from the

observance

of

some

law

or

the

performance of some duty. In Masonry, no
one has the authority to grant this
exemption, except the Grand Master; and,
although the exercise of it is limited within
the observance of the ancient landmarks,
the operation of the prerogative is still
very extensive. The dispensing power may
be exercised under the following
circumstances:

1. The fourth old Regulation prescribes
that "no lodge shall make more than five
new Brothers at one and the same time
without an urgent necessity." [15] But of this
necessity the Grand Master may judge,
and, on good and sufficient reason being
shown, he may grant a dispensation
enabling any lodge to suspend this
regulation and make more than five new
Brothers.

2. The next regulation prescribes "that no
one can be accepted a member of a
particular lodge without previous notice,
one month before given to the lodge, in
order to make due inquiry into the
reputation and capacity of the candidate."
But here, also, it is held that, in a suitable
case of emergency, the Grand Master may
exercise his prerogative and dispense
with this probation of one month,
permitting the candidate to be made on
the night of his application.

3. If a lodge should have omitted for any
causes to elect its officers or any of them
on the constitutional night of election, or if
any officer so elected shall have died,
been deposed or removed from the
jurisdiction subsequent to his election, the
Grand Master may issue a dispensation
empowering the lodge to proceed to an
election or to fill the vacancy at any other

specified communication; but he cannot
grant a dispensation to elect a new master
in consequence of the death or removal of
the old one, while the two Wardens or
either of them remain—because the
Wardens succeed by inherent right and in
order of seniority to the vacant mastership.
And, indeed, it is held that while one of the
three officers remains, no election can be
held, even by dispensation, to fill the other
two places, though vacancies in them may
have occurred by death or removal.

4. The Grand Master may grant a
dispensation empowering a lodge to elect
a Master from among the members on the
floor; but this must be done only when
every Past Master, Warden, and Past
Warden of the lodge has refused to
serve, [16] because ordinarily a requisite
qualification for the Mastership is, that the
candidate shall, previously, have served in

the office of Warden.

5. In the year 1723 a regulation was
adopted, prescribing "that no Brother
should belong to more than one lodge
within the bills of mortality." Interpreting
the last expression to mean three
miles— which is now supposed to be the
geographical limit of a lodge's jurisdiction,
this regulation may still be considered as a
part of the law of Masonry; but in some
Grand Lodges, as that of South Carolina,
for instance, the Grand Master will
sometimes exercise his prerogative, and,
dispensing with this regulation, permit a
Brother to belong to two lodges, although
they may be within three miles of each
other.

6. But the most important power of the
Grand Master connected with his
dispensing prerogative is, that of

constituting new lodges. It has already
been remarked that, anciently, a warrant
was not required for the formation of a
lodge, but that a sufficient number of
Masons, met together within a certain limit,
were empowered, with the consent of the
sheriff or chief magistrate of the place, to
make Masons and practice the rites of
Masonry, without such warrant of
Constitution. But, in the year 1717, it was
adopted as a regulation, that every lodge,
to be thereafter convened, should be
authorised to act by a warrant from the
Grand Master for the time being, granted
to certain persons by petition, with the
consent and approbation of the Grand
Lodge in communication. Ever since that
time, no lodge has been considered as
legally established, unless it has been
constituted by the authority of the Grand
Master. In the English Constitutions, the
instrument thus empowering a lodge to

meet, is called, when granted by the
Grand Master, a Warrant of Constitution. It
is granted by the Grand Master and not by
the Grand Lodge. It appears to be a final
instrument, notwithstanding the provision
enacted in 1717, requiring the consent and
approbation of the Grand Lodge; for in the
Constitution of the United Grand Lodge of
England, there is no allusion whatever to
this consent and approbation.

But in this country, the process is
somewhat different, and the Grand Master
is deprived of a portion of his prerogative.
Here, the instrument granted by the Grand
Master is called a Dispensation. The lodge
receiving it is not admitted into the
register of lodges, nor is it considered as
possessing any of the rights and privileges
of a lodge, except that of making Masons,
until a Warrant of Constitution is granted
by the Grand Lodge. The ancient

prerogative of the Grand Master is,
however, preserved in the fact, that after a
lodge has been thus warranted by the
Grand Lodge, the ceremony of constituting
it, which embraces its consecration and
the installation of its officers, can only be
performed by the Grand Master in person,
or by his special Deputy appointed for that
purpose. [17]

III. The third prerogative of the Grand
Master is that of visitation. He has a right to
visit any lodge within his jurisdiction at
such times as he pleases, and when there
to preside; and it is the duty of the Master
to offer him the chair and his gavel, which
the Grand Master may decline or accept at
his pleasure. This prerogative admits of no
question, as it is distinctly declared in the
first of the Thirty-nine Regulations,
adopted in 1721, in the following words:—

"The Grand Master or Deputy has full
authority and right, not only to be present,
but to preside in every lodge, with the
Master of the lodge on his left hand, and to
order his Grand Wardens to attend him,
who are not to act as Wardens of particular
lodges, but in his presence and at his
command; for the Grand Master, while in a
particular lodge, may command the
Wardens of that lodge, or any other Master
Masons, to act as his Wardens, _pro
tempore_."

But in a subsequent regulation it was
provided, that as the Grand Master cannot
deprive the Grand Wardens of that office
without the consent of the Grand Lodge, he
should appoint no other persons to act as
Wardens in his visitation to a private
lodge, unless the Grand Wardens were
absent. This whole regulation is still in
existence.

The question has been lately mooted,
whether, if the Grand Master declines to
preside, he does not thereby place himself
in the position of a private Brother, and
become subject, as all the others present,
to the control of the Worshipful Master. I
answer, that of course he becomes subject
to and must of necessity respect those
rules of order and decorum which are
obligatory on all good men and Masons;
but that he cannot, by the exercise of an
act of courtesy in declining to preside,
divest himself of his prerogative, which,
moreover, he may at any time during the
evening assume, and demand the gavel.
The Grand Master of Masons can, under no
circumstances, become subject to the
decrees and orders of the Master of a
particular lodge.

IV. Another prerogative of the Grand

Master is that of appointment; which,
however, in this country, has been much
diminished. According to the old
regulations, and the custom is still
continued in the Constitutions of the Grand
Lodge of England, the Grand Master has
the right of appointing his Deputy and
Wardens. In the United States, the office
has been shorn of this high prerogative,
and these Officers are elected by the
Grand Lodge. The Deputy, however, is still
appointed by the Grand Master, in some of
the States, as Massachusetts, North
Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas. The
appointment of the principal subordinate
officers, is also given to the Grand Master
by the American Grand Lodges.

V. The last and most extraordinary power
of the Grand Master, is that of _making
Masons at sicrht .

The power to "make Masons at sight" is a
technical term, which may be defined to
be the power to initiate, pass, and raise
candidates by the Grand Master, in a
lodge of emergency, or as it is called in
the Book of Constitutions, "an occasional
lodge," especially convened by him, and
consisting of such Master Masons as he
may call together for that purpose
only— the lodge ceasing to exist as soon as
the initiation, passing, or raising, has been
accomplished and the Brethren have been
dismissed by the Grand Master.

Whether such a power is vested in the
Grand Master, is a question that, within the
last few years, has been agitated with
much warmth, by some of the Grand
Lodges of this country; but I am not aware
that, until very lately, the prerogative was
ever disputed. [ 18 ]

In the Book of Constitutions, however,
several instances are furnished of the
exercise of this right by various Grand
Masters.

In 1731, Lord Lovel being Grand Master,
he "formed an occasional lodge at
Houghton Hall, Sir Robert Walpole's House
in Norfolk," and there made the Duke of
Lorraine, afterwards Emperor of Germany,
and the Duke of Newcastle, Master
Masons. [19]

I do not quote the case of the initiation,
passing, and raising of Frederick, Prince of
Wales, in 1737, which was done in "an
occasional lodge," over which Dr.
Desaguliers presided, [20] because as
Desaguliers was not the Grand Master, nor
even, as has been incorrectly stated by the
New York Committee of Correspondence,
Deputy Grand Master, but only a Past

Grand Master, it cannot be called _a
making at sight_. He most probably acted
under the dispensation of the Grand
Master, who at that time was the Earl of
Darnley.

But in 1766, Lord Blaney, who was then
Grand Master, convened "an occasional
lodge" and initiated, passed, and raised
the Duke of Gloucester. [21]

Again in 1767, John Salter, the Deputy,
then acting as Grand Master, convened "an
occasional lodge," and conferred the three
degrees on the Duke of Cumberland. [22]

In 1787, the Prince of Wales was made a
Mason "at an occasional lodge, convened,"
says Preston, "for the purpose, at the Star
and Garter, Pall Mall, over which the Duke
of Cumberland, (Grand Master) presided
in person." [23]

But it is unnecessary to multiply instances
of the right, exercised by former Grand
Masters, of congregating occasional
lodges, and making Masons at sight. It has
been said, however, by the oppugners of
this prerogative, that these "occasional
lodges" were only special communications
of the Grand Lodge, and the "makings" are
thus supposed to have taken place under
the authority of that body, and not of the
Grand Master. The facts, however, do not
sustain this position. Throughout the Book
of Constitutions, other meetings, whether
regular or special, are distinctly recorded
as meetings of the Grand Lodge, while
these "occasional lodges" appear only to
have been convened by the Grand Master,
for the purpose of making Masons.
Besides, in many instances, the lodge was
held at a different place from that of the
Grand Lodge, and the officers were not,

with the exception of the Grand Master,
the officers of the Grand Lodge. Thus the
occasional lodge, which initiated the Duke
of Lorraine, was held at the residence of
Sir Robert Walpole, in Norfolk, while the
Grand Lodge always met in London. In

1766,

the

Grand Lodge held

its

communications at the Crown and Anchor;
but the occasional lodge, which, in the
same year, conferred the degrees on the
Duke of Gloucester, was convened at the
Horn Tavern. In the following year, the
lodge which initiated the Duke of

Cumberland was

convened at the

Thatched House Tavern, the Grand Lodge
continuing to meet at the Crown and
Anchor.

This may be considered very conclusive
evidence of the existence of the
prerogative of the Grand Master, which we
are now discussing, but the argument

_Dfortiori_, drawn from his dispensing
power, will tend to confirm the doctrine.

No one doubts or denies the power of the
Grand Master to constitute new lodges by
dispensation. In 1741, the Grand Lodge of
England forgot it for a moment, and
adopted a new regulation, that no new
lodge should be constituted until the
consent of the Grand Lodge had been first
obtained, "But this order, afterwards
appearing," says the Book of
Constitutions, [24] "to be an infringement
on the prerogative of the Grand Master,
and to be attended with many
inconveniences and with damage to the
craft, was repealed."

It is, then, an undoubted prerogative of the
Grand Master to constitute lodges by
dispensation, and in these lodges, so
constituted, Masons may be legally

entered, passed, and raised. This is done
every day. Seven Master Masons, applying
to the Grand Master, he grants them a
dispensation, under authority of which
they proceed to open and hold a lodge,
and to make Masons. This lodge is,
however, admitted to be the mere creature
of the Grand Master, for it is in his power,
at any time, to revoke the dispensation he
had granted, and thus to dissolve the
lodge.

But, if the Grand Master has the power thus
to enable others to confer the degrees and
make Masons by his individual authority
out of his presence, are we not permitted
to argue _Dfortiori_ that he has also the
right of congregating seven Brethren and
causing a Mason, to be made in his sight?
Can he delegate a power to others which
he does not himself possess? And is his
calling together "an occasional lodge," and

making, with the assistance of the Brethren
thus assembled, a Mason "at sight," that is
to say, in his presence, anything more or
less than the exercise of his dispensing
power, for the establishment of a lodge
under dispensation, for a temporary
period, and for a special purpose. The
purpose having been effected, and the
Mason having been made, he revokes his
dispensation, and the lodge is dismissed.
If we assumed any other ground than this,
we should be compelled to say, that
though the Grand Master might authorise
others to make Masons, when he was
absent, as in the usual case of lodges
under dispensation yet the instant that he
attempted to convey the same powers to
be exercised in his presence, and under
his personal supervision, his authority
would cease. This course of reasoning
would necessarily lead to a contradiction
in terms, if not to an actual absurdity.

It is proper to state, in conclusion, that the
views here set forth are not entertained by
the very able Committee of Foreign
Correspondence of the Grand Lodge of
Florida, who only admit the power of the
Grand Master to make Masons in the
Grand Lodge. On the other hand, the
Grand Lodge of Wisconsin, at its last
communication, adopted a report,
asserting "that the Grand Master has the
right to make Masons at sight, in cases
which he may deem proper"— and the
Committee of Correspondence of New
York declares, that "since the time when
the memory of man runneth not to the
contrary, Grand Masters have enjoyed the
privilege of making Masons at sight,
without any preliminaries, and at any
suitable time or place."

The opinions of the two last quoted Grand

Lodges embody the general sentiment of
the Craft on this subject. [25] But although
the prerogative is thus almost universally
ceded to Grand Masters, there are many
very reasonable doubts as to the
expediency of its exercise, except under
extraordinary circumstances of
emergency.

In England, the practice has generally
been confined to the making of Princes of
the Royal Family, who, for reasons of state,
were unwilling to reduce themselves to the
level of ordinary candidates and receive
their initiation publicly in a subordinate
lodge.

But in the exercise of this prerogative, the
Grand Master cannot dispense with any of
the requisite forms of initiation, prescribed
by the oral laws of the Order. He cannot
communicate the degrees, but must

adhere

to

all

the

established

ceremonies— the conferring of degrees by
"communication" being a form unknown to
the York rite. He must be assisted by the
number of Brethren necessary to open and
hold a lodge. Due inquiry must be made
into the candidate's character, (though the
Grand Master may, as in a case of
emergency, dispense with the usual
probation of a month). He cannot interfere
with the business of a regular lodge, by
making one whom it had rejected, nor
finishing one which it had commenced.
Nor can he confer the three degrees, at
one and the same communication. In short,
he must, in making Masons at sight,
conform to the ancient usages and

landmarks

of

the

Order.

Section II.

_The Deputy Grand Master. _

The office of Deputy Grand Master is one
of great dignity, but not of much practical
importance, except in case of the absence
of the Grand Master, when he assumes all
the prerogatives of that officer. Neither is
the office, comparatively speaking, of a
very ancient date. At the first
reorganization of the Grand Lodge in 1717,
and for two or three years afterwards, no
Deputy was appointed, and it was not until
1721 that the Duke of Montagu conferred
the dignity on Dr. Beal. Originally the
Deputy was intended to relieve the Grand
Master of all the burden and pressure of
business, and the 36th of the Regulations,
adopted in 1721, states that "a Deputy is
said to have been always needful when the

Grand Master was nobly born," because it
was considered as a derogation from the
dignity of a nobleman to enter upon the
ordinary business of the craft. Hence we
find, among the General Regulations, one
which sets forth this principle in the
following words:

"The Grand Master should not receive any
private intimations of business, concerning
Masons and Masonry, but from his Deputy
first, except in such cases as his worship
can easily judge of; and if the application
to the Grand Master be irregular, his
worship can order the Grand Wardens, or
any other so applying, to wait upon the
Deputy, who is immediately to prepare the
business, and to lay it orderly before his
worship."

The Deputy Grand Master exercises, in the
absence of the Grand Master, all the

prerogatives and performs all the duties of
that officer. But he does so, not by virtue of
any new office that he has acquired by
such absence, but simply in the name of
and as the representative of the Grand
Master, from whom alone he derives all his
authority. Such is the doctrine sustained in
all the precedents recorded in the Book of
Constitutions.

In the presence of the Grand Master, the
office of Deputy is merely one of honour,
without the necessity of performing any
duties, and without the power of
exercising any prerogatives.

There cannot be more than one Deputy
Grand Master in a jurisdiction; so that the
appointment of a greater number, as is the
case in some of the States, is a manifest
innovation on the ancient usages. District
Deputy Grand Masters, which officers are

also a modern invention of this country,
seem to take the place in some degree of
the Provincial Grand Masters of England,
but they are not invested with the same
prerogatives. The office is one of local
origin, and its powers and duties are
prescribed by the local regulations of the
Grand Lodge which may have established
it.

Section III.

Of the Grand Wardens.

The Senior and Junior Grand Wardens
were originally appointed, like the
Deputy, by the Grand Master, and are still
so appointed in England; but in this
country they are universally elected by the
Grand Lodge. Their duties do not
materially differ from those performed by
the corresponding officers in a
subordinate lodge. They accompany the
Grand Master in his visitations, and
assume the stations of the Wardens of the
lodge visited.

According to the regulations of 1721, the
Master of the oldest lodge present was
directed to take the chair of the Grand
Lodge in the absence of both the Grand

Master and Deputy; but this was found to
be an interference with the rights of the
Grand Wardens, and it was therefore
subsequently declared that, in the absence
of the Grand Master and Deputy, the last
former Grand Master or Deputy should
preside. But if no Past Grand or Past
Deputy Grand Master should be present,
then the Senior Grand Warden was to fill
the chair, and, in his absence, the Junior
Grand Warden, and lastly, in absence of
both these, then the oldest Freemason[26]
who is the present Master of a lodge. In
this country, however, most of the Grand
Lodges have altered this regulation, and
the Wardens succeed according to
seniority to the chair of the absent Grand
Master and Deputy, in preference to any
Past Grand Officer.

Section IV.

Of the Grand Treasurer.

The office of Grand Treasurer was first
established in 1724, in consequence of a
report of the Committee of Charity of the
Grand Lodge of England. But no one was
found to hold the trust until the 24th of
June, 1727, when, at the request of the
Grand Master, the appointment was
accepted by Nathaniel Blackerby, Deputy
Grand Master. The duties of the office do
not at all differ from those of a
corresponding one in every other society;
but as the trust is an important one in a
pecuniary view, it has generally been
deemed prudent that it should only be
committed to "a brother of good worldly
substance," whose ample means would
place him beyond the chances of

temptation.

The office of Grand Treasurer has this
peculiarity, that while all the other officers
below the Grand Master were originally,
and still are in England, appointed, that
alone was always elective.

Section V.

Of the Grand Secretary.

This is one of the most important offices in
the Grand Lodge, and should always be
occupied by a Brother of intelligence and
education, whose abilities may reflect
honor on the institution of which he is the
accredited public organ. The office was
established in the year 1723, during the
Grand Mastership of the Duke of Wharton,
previous to which time the duties appear
to have been discharged by the Grand
Wardens.

The Grand Secretary not only records the
proceedings of the Grand Lodge, but
conducts its correspondence, and is the
medium through whom all applications on
masonic subjects are to be made to the

Grand Master, or the Grand Lodge.

According to the regulations of the Grand
Lodges of England, New York and South
Carolina, the Grand Secretary may appoint
an assistant, who is not, however, by virtue
of such appointment, a member of the
Grand Lodge. The same privilege is also
extended in South Carolina to the Grand
Treasurer.

Section VI.

Of the Grand Chaplain.

This is the last of the Grand Offices that
was established, having been instituted on
the 1st of May, in the year 1775. The duties
are confined to the reading of prayers, and
other sacred portions of the ritual, in
consecrations, dedications, funeral
services, etc. The office confers no
masonic authority at all, except that of a
seat and a vote in the Grand Lodcre.

Section VII.

Of the Grand Deacons.

But little need be said of the Grand
Deacons. Their duties correspond to those
of the same officers in subordinate lodges.
The office of the Deacons, even in a
subordinate lodge, is of comparatively
modern institution. Dr. Oliver remarks that
they are not mentioned in any of the early
Constitutions of Masonry, nor even so late
as 1797, when Stephen Jones wrote his
"Masonic Miscellanies," and he thinks it
"satisfactorily proved that Deacons were
not considered necessary, in working the
business of a lodge, before the very latter
end of the eighteenth century." [27]

But although the Deacons are not
mentioned in the various works published

previous to that period, which are quoted
by Dr. Oliver, it is nevertheless certain that
the office existed at a time much earlier
than that which he supposes. In a work in
my possession, and which is now lying
before me, entitled "Every Young Man's
Companion, etc., by W. Gordon, Teacher
of the Mathematics," sixth edition printed
at London, in 1777, there is a section,
extending from page 413 to page 426,
which is dedicated to the subject of
Freemasonry and to a description of the
working of a subordinate lodge. Here the
Senior and Junior Deacons are enumerated
among the officers, their exact positions
described and their duties detailed,
differing in no respect from the
explanations of our own ritual at the
present day. The positive testimony of this
book must of course outweigh the negative
testimony of the authorities quoted by
Oliver, and shows the existence in

England of Deacons in the year 1777 at
least.

It is also certain that the office of Deacon
claims an earlier origin in America than
the "very latter end of the eighteenth
century;" and, as an evidence of this, it
may be stated that, in the "Ahiman Rezon"
of Pennsylvania, published in 1783, the
Grand Deacons are named among the
officers of the Grand Lodge, "as particular
assistants to the Grand Master and Senior

Warden, in conducting the business of the
Lodge." They are to be found in all Grand
Lodges of the York Rite, and are usually
appointed, the Senior by the Grand
Master, and the Junior by the Senior Grand

Warden.

Section VIII.

_Of the Grand Marshal. _

The _Grand Marshal_, as an officer of
convenience, existed from an early
period. We find him mentioned in the
procession of the Grand Lodge, made in
1731, where he is described as carrying "a
truncheon, blue, tipped with gold,"
insignia which he still retains. He takes no
part in the usual work of the Lodge; but his
duties are confined to the proclamation of
the Grand Officers at their installation, and
to the arrangement and superintendence
of public processions.

The Grand Marshal is usually appointed by
the Grand Master.

Section IX.

Of the Grand Stewards.

The first mention that is made of Stewards
is in the Old Regulations, adopted in 1721.
Previous to that time, the arrangements of
the Grand Feast were placed in the hands
of the Grand Wardens; and it was to
relieve them of this labor that the
regulation was adopted, authorizing the
Grand Master, or his Deputy, to appoint a
certain number of Stewards, who were to
act in concert with the Grand Wardens. In
1728, it was ordered that the number of
Stewards to be appointed should be
twelve. In 1731, a regulation was adopted,
permitting the Grand Stewards to appoint
their successors. And, in 1735, the Grand
Lodge ordered, that, "in consideration of
their past service and future usefulness,"

they should be constituted a Lodge of
Masters, to be called the Stewards' Lodge,
which should have a registry in the Grand
Lodge list, and exercise the privilege of
sending twelve representatives. This was
the origin of that body now known in the
Constitutions of the Grand Lodges of
England and New York, [28] as the Grand
Stewards' Lodge, although it has been very
extensively modified in its organization. In
New York, it is now no more than a
Standing Committee of the Grand Lodge;
and in England, although it is regularly
constituted, as a Lodge of Master Masons,
it is by a special regulation deprived of all
power of entering, passing, or raising
Masons. In other jurisdictions, the office of
Grand Stewards is still preserved, but their
functions are confined to their original
purpose of preparing and superintending
the Grand Feast.

The appointment of the Grand Stewards
should be most appropriately vested in the
Junior Grand Warden.

Section X.

Of the Grand Sword-Bearer.

_Grand Sword-Bearer._— It was an ancient
feudal custom, that all great dignitaries
should have a sword of state borne before
them, as the insignia of their dignity. This
usage has to this day been preserved in
the Masonic Institution, and the Grand
Master's sword of state is still borne in all
public processions by an officer specially
appointed for that purpose. Some years
after the reorganization of the Grand
Lodge of England, the sword was borne by
the Master of the Lodge to which it
belonged; but, in 1730, the Duke of
Norfolk, being then Grand Master,
presented to the Grand Lodge the sword of
Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, which
had afterwards been used in war by

Bernard, Duke of Saxe Weimar, and which
the Grand Master directed should
thereafter be adopted as his sword of
state. In consequence of this donation, the
office of Grand Sword-Bearer was
instituted in the following year. The office
is still retained; but some Grand Lodges
have changed the name to that of _Grand
Pursuivant .

Section XI.

Of the Grand Tiler.

It is evident from the Constitutions of
Masonry, as well as from the peculiar
character of the institution, that the office
of Grand Tiler must have existed from the
very first organization of a Grand Lodge.
As, from the nature of the duties that he has
to perform, the Grand Tiler is necessarily
excluded from partaking of the
discussions, or witnessing the proceedings
of the Grand Lodge, it has very generally
been determined, from a principle of
expediency, that he shall not be a member
of the Grand Lodge during the term of his
office.

The Grand Tiler is sometimes elected by
the Grand Lodge, and sometimes

appointed by the Grand

Master.

Chapter V.

Of the Powers and Prerogatives of a Grand
Lodge.

Section I.

General View.

The necessary and usual officers of a
Grand Lodge having been described, the
rights, powers, and prerogatives of such a
body is the next subject of our inquiry.

The foundation-stone, upon which the
whole superstructure of masonic authority
in the Grand Lodge is built, is to be found
in that conditional clause annexed to the
thirty-eight articles, adopted in 1721 by
the Masons of England, and which is in
these words:

"Every annual Grand Lodge has an
inherent power and authority to make new
regulations, or to alter these for the real
benefit of this ancient fraternity;

PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT THE OLD
LANDMARKS BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED ;
and that such alterations and new
regulations be proposed and agreed to at
the third quarterly communication
preceding the annual Grand Feast; and
that they be offered also to the perusal of
all the Brethren before dinner, in writing,
even of the youngest Entered Apprentice:
the approbation and consent of the
majority of all the Brethren present being
absolutely necessary, to make the same
binding and obligatory."

The expression which is put in
capitals— "provided always that the old
landmarks be carefully preserved"— is the
limiting clause which must be steadily
borne in mind, whenever we attempt to
enumerate the powers of a Grand Lodge. It
must never be forgotten (in the words of
another regulation, adopted in 1723, and

incorporated in the ritual of installation),
that "it is not in the power of any man, or
body of men, to make any alteration or
innovation in the body of Masonry."

"With these views to limit us, the powers of
a Grand Lodge may be enumerated in the
language which has been adopted in the
modern constitutions of England, and
which seem to us, after a careful
comparison, to be as comprehensive and
correct as any that we have been able to
examine. This enumeration is in the
following language:

"In the Grand Lodge, alone, resides the
power of enacting laws and regulations for
the permanent government of the craft,
and of altering, repealing, and abrogating
them, always taking care that the ancient
landmarks of the order are preserved. The
Grand Lodge has also the inherent power

of investigating, regulating, and deciding
all matters relative to the craft, or to
particular lodges, or to individual
Brothers, which it may exercise either of
itself, or by such delegated authority, as in
its wisdom and discretion it may appoint;
but in the Grand Lodge alone resides the
power of erasing lodges, and expelling
Brethren from the craft, a power which it
ought not to delegate to any subordinate
authority in England."

In this enumeration we discover the
existence of three distinct classes of
powers:— 1, a legislative power; 2, a
judicial power; and 3, an executive power.
Each of these will occupy a separate
section.

Section II.

_Of the Legislative Power of a Grand
Lodge

In the passage already quoted from the
Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of
England it is said, "in the Grand Lodge,
alone, resides the power of enacting laws
and regulations for the government of the
craft, and of altering, repealing, and
abrogating them." General regulations for
the government of the whole craft
throughout the world can no longer be
enacted by a Grand Lodge. The
multiplication of these bodies, since the
year 1717, has so divided the supremacy
that no regulation now enacted can have
the force and authority of those adopted
by the Grand Lodge of England in 1721,
and which now constitute a part of the

fundamental law of Masonry, and as such
are unchangeable by any modern Grand
Lodge.

Any Grand Lodge may, however, enact
local laws for the direction of its own
special affairs, and has also the
prerogative of enacting the regulations
which are to govern all its subordinates
and the craft generally in its own
jurisdiction. From this legislative power,
which belongs exclusively to the Grand
Lodge, it follows that no subordinate lodge
can make any new bye-laws, nor alter its
old ones, without the approval and
confirmation of the Grand Lodge. Hence,
the rules and regulations of every lodge
are inoperative until they are submitted to
and approved by the Grand Lodge. The
confirmation of that body is the enacting
clause; and, therefore, strictly speaking, it
may be said that the subordinates only

propose the
Lodge

bye-laws, and the Grand
enacts them.

Section III.

Of the Judicial Power of a Grand Lodge.

The passage already quoted from the
English Constitutions continues to say, that
"the Grand Lodge has the inherent power
of investigating, regulating and deciding
all matters relative to the craft, or to
particular lodges, or to individual
Brothers, which it may exercise, either of
itself, or by such delegated authority as in
its wisdom and discretion it may appoint."
Under the first clause of this section, the
Grand Lodge is constituted as the Supreme
Masonic Tribunal of its jurisdiction. But as
it would be impossible for that body to
investigate every masonic offense that
occurs within its territorial limits, with that
full and considerate attention that the
principles of justice require, it has, under

the latter clause of the section, delegated
this duty, in general, to the subordinate
lodges, who are to act as its committees,
and to report the results of their inquiry for
its final disposition. From this course of
action has risen the erroneous opinion of
some persons, that the jurisdiction of the
Grand Lodge is only appellate in its
character. Such is not the case. The Grand
Lodge possesses an original jurisdiction
over all causes occurring within its limits.
It is only for expediency that it remits the
examination of the merits of any case to a
subordinate lodge as a _quasi_ committee.
It may, if it thinks proper, commence the
investigation of any matter concerning
either a lodge, or an individual brother
within its own bosom, and whenever an
appeal from the decision of a lodge is
made, which, in reality, is only a dissent
from the report of the lodge, the Grand
Lodge does actually recommence the

investigation _de novo_, and, taking the
matter out of the lodge, to whom by its
general usage it had been primarily
referred, it places it in the hands of
another committee of its own body for a
new report. The course of action is, it is
true, similar to that in law, of an appeal
from an inferior to a superior tribunal. But
the principle is different. The Grand Lodge
simply confirms or rejects the report that
has been made to it, and it may do that
without any appeal having been entered. It
may, in fact, dispense with the necessity of
an investigation by and report from a
subordinate lodge altogether, and
undertake the trial itself from the very
inception. But this, though a constitutional,
is an unusual course. The subordinate
lodge is the instrument which the Grand
Lodge employs in considering the
investigation. It may or it may not make
use of the instrument, as it pleases.

Section IV.

_Of the Executive Power of a Grand
Lodge._

The English Constitutions conclude, in the
passage that has formed the basis of our
previous remarks, by asserting that "in the
Grand Lodge, alone, resides the power of
erasing lodges and expelling Brethren
from the craft, a power which it ought not
to delegate to any subordinate authority."
The power of the Grand Lodge to erase
lodges is accompanied with a coincident
power of constituting new lodges. This
power it originally shared with the Grand
Master, and still does in England; but in
this country the power of the Grand Lodge
is paramount to that of the Grand Master.
The latter can only constitute lodges
temporarily, by dispensation, and his act

must be confirmed, or may be annulled by
the Grand Lodge. It is not until a lodge has
received its Warrant of Constitution from
the Grand Lodge, that it can assume the
rank and exercise the prerogatives of a
regular and legal lodge.

The expelling power is one that is very
properly intrusted to the Grand Lodge,
which is the only tribunal that should
impose a penalty affecting the relations of
the punished party with the whole
fraternity. Some of the lodges in this
country have claimed the right to expel
independently of the action of the Grand
Lodge. But the claim is founded on an
erroneous assumption of powers that have
never existed, and which are not
recognized by the ancient constitutions,
nor the general usages of the fraternity. A
subordinate lodge tries its delinquent
member, under the provisions which have

already been stated, and, according to the
general usage of lodges in the United
States, declares him expelled. But the
sentence is of no force nor effect until it
has been confirmed by the Grand Lodge,

which may, or may not, give the required
confirmation, and which, indeed, often

refuses to do so, but actually reverses the
sentence. It is apparent, from the views
already expressed on the judicial powers
of the Grand Lodge, that the sentence of

expulsion uttered by the subordinate is to
be taken in the sense of a

recommendatory report, and that it is the
confirmation and adoption of that report by

the Grand Lodge that alone gives it vitality
and effect.

The expelling power presumes, of course,
coincidently, the reinstating power. As the
Grand Lodge alone can expel, it also alone
can reinstate.

These constitute the general powers and
prerogatives of a Grand Lodge. Of course
there are other local powers, assumed by
various Grand Lodges, and differing in the
several jurisdictions, but they are all
derived from some one of the three classes
that we have enumerated. From these
views, it will appear that a Grand Lodge is
the supreme legislative, judicial, and
executive authority of the Masonic
jurisdiction in which it is situated. It is, to
use a feudal term, "the lord paramount" in
Masonry. It is a representative body, in
which, however, it constituents have
delegated everything and reserved no
rights to themselves. Its authority is almost
unlimited, for it is restrained by but a
single check:— _It cannot alter or remove
the ancient landmarks .

Book Second

Laws

of Subordinate

Lodges.

Having thus succinctly treated of the law in
relation to Grand Lodges, I come next in
order to consider the law as it respects the
organization, rights, powers, and
privileges of subordinate Lodges; and the
first question that will engage our attention
will be, as to the proper method of

Chapter I.

Of the Nature and
Subordinate

Organization

Lodges.

The old charges define a Lodge to be "a
place where Masons assemble and work;"
and also "that assembly, or duly organized
society of Masons." The lecture on the first
degree gives a still more precise
definition. It says that "a lodge is an
assemblage of Masons, duly congregated,
having the Holy Bible, square, and
compasses, and a charter, or warrant of
constitution, empowering them to work."

Every lodge of Masons requires for its
proper organization, that it should have
been congregated by the permission of
some superior authority, which may be
either a Grand Master or a Grand Lodge.
When a lodge is organized by the
authority of a Grand Master, it is said to
work under a Dispensation, and when by
the authority of a Grand Lodge, it is said to
work under a warrant of constitution. In the
history of a lodge, the former authority

generally precedes the latter, the lodge
usually working for some time under the
dispensation of the Grand Master, before it
is regularly warranted by the Grand
Lodge. But this is not necessarily the case.
A Grand Lodge will sometimes grant a
warrant of constitution at once, without the
previous exercise, on the part of the Grand
Master, of his dispensing power. As it is,
however, more usually the practice for the
dispensation to precede the warrant of
constitution, I shall explain the formation of
a lodge according to that method.

Any number of Master Masons, not under
seven, being desirous of uniting
themselves into a lodge, apply by petition
to the Grand Master for the necessary
authority. This petition must set forth that
they now are, or have been, members of a
regularly constituted lodge, and must
assign, as a reason for their application,

that they desire to form the lodge "for the
conveniency of their respective
dwellings," or some other sufficient
reason. The petition must also name the
brethren whom they desire to act as their
Master and Wardens, and the place where
they intend to meet; and it must be
recommended by the nearest lodge.

Dalcho says that not less than three Master
Masons should sign the petition; but in this
he differs from all the other authorities,
which require not less than seven. This
rule, too, seems to be founded in reason;
for, as it requires seven Masons to
constitute a quorum for opening and
holding a lodge of Entered Apprentices, it
would be absurd to authorize a smaller
number to organize a lodge which, after its
organization, could not be opened, nor
make Masons in that decrree.

Preston says that the petition must be
recommended "by the Masters of three
regular lodges adjacent to the place where
the new lodge is to be held." Dalcho says it
must be recommended "by three other
known and approved Master Masons," but
does not make any allusion to any adj acent
lodge. The laws and regulations of the
Grand Lodge of Scotland require the
recommendation to be signed "by the
Masters and officers of two of the nearest

lodges." The Constitutions of the Grand
Lodge of England require that it must be
recommended "by the officers of some
regular lodge." The recommendation of a

neighboring lodge is the general usage

the craft, and is intended to certify to the

superior authority, on the very best
evidence that can be obtained, that,

namely, of an adjacent lodge, that the new
lodge will be productive of no injury to the

Order.

If this petition be granted, the Grand
Secretary prepares a document called a
_dispensation_, which authorizes the
officers named in the petition to open and
hold a lodge, and to "enter, pass, and raise
Freemasons." The duration of this
dispensasation is generally expressed on
its face to be, "until it shall be revoked by
the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge, or
until a warrant of constitution is granted by
the Grand Lodge." Preston says, that the
Brethren named in it are authorized "to
assemble as Masons for forty days, and
until such time as a warrant of constitution
can be obtained by command of the Grand
Lodge, or that authority be recalled." But
generally, usage continues the
dispensation only until the next meeting of
the Grand Lodge, when it is either
revoked, or a warrant of constitution
granted.

If the dispensation be revoked by either
the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge (for
either has the power to do so), the lodge of
course at once ceases to exist. Whatever
funds or property it has accumulated
revert, as in the case of all extinct lodges,
to the Grand Lodge, which may be called
the natural heir of its subordinates; but all
the work done in the lodge, under the
dispensation, is regular and legal, and all
the Masons made by it are, in every sense
of the term, "true and lawful Brethren."

Let it be supposed, however, that the
dispensation is confirmed or approved by
the Grand Lodge, and we thus arrive at
another step in the history of the new
lodge. At the next sitting of the Grand
Lodge, after the dispensation has been
issued by the Grand Master, he states that
fact to the Grand Lodge, when, either at his

request, or on motion of some Brother, the
vote is taken on the question of
constituting the new lodge, and, if a
majority are in favor of it, the Grand
Secretary is ordered to grant a warrant of
constitution.

This instrument differs from a dispensation
in many important particulars. It is signed
by all the Grand Officers, and emanates
from the Grand Lodge, while the
dispensation emanates from the office of
the Grand Master, and is signed by him
alone. The authority of the dispensation is
temporary, that of the warrant permanent;
the one can be revoked at pleasure by the
Grand Master, who granted it; the other
only for cause shown, and by the Grand
Lodge; the one bestows only a name, the
other both a name and a number; the one
confers only the power of holding a lodge
and making Masons, the other not only

confers these powers, but also those of
installation and of succession in office.
From these differences in the characters of
the two documents, arise important
differences in the powers and privileges of
a lodge under dispensation and of one that
has been regularly constituted. These
differences shall hereafter be considered.

The warrant having been granted, there
still remain certain forms and ceremonies
to be observed, before the lodge can take
its place among the legal and registered
lodges of the jurisdiction in which it is
situated. These are its consecration, its
dedication, its constitution, and the
installation of its officers. We shall not fully
enter into a description of these various
ceremonies, because they are laid down at
length in all the Monitors, and are readily
accessible to our readers. It will be
sufficient if we barely allude to their

character.

The ceremony of constitution is so called,
because by it the lodge becomes
constituted or established. Orthoepists
define the verb to constitute, as signifying
"to give a formal existence to anything."
Hence, to constitute a lodge is to give it
existence, character, and standing as such;
and the instrument that warrants the
person so constituting or establishing it, in
this act, is very properly called the
"warrant of constitution."

The consecration, dedication, and
constitution of a lodge must be performed
by the Grand Master in person; or, if he
cannot conveniently attend, by some Past
Master appointed by him as his special
proxy or representative for that purpose.
On the appointed evening, the Grand
Master, accompanied by his Grand

Officers, repairs to the place where the
new lodge is to hold its meetings, the
lodge[29] having been placed in the
centre of the room and decently covered
with a piece of white linen or satin. Having
taken the chair, he examines the records
of the lodge and the warrant of
constitution; the officers who have been
chosen are presented before him, when he
inquires of the Brethren if they continue
satisfied with the choice they have made.
The ceremony of consecration is then
performed. The Lodge is uncovered; and
corn, wine, and oil— the masonic elements
of consecration— are poured upon it,
accompanied by appropriate prayers and
invocations, and the lodge is finally
declared to be consecrated to the honor
and glory of God.

This ceremony of consecration has been
handed down from the remotest antiquity.

A consecrating— a separating from profane
things, and making holy or devoting to
sacred purposes— was practiced by both
the Jews and the Pagans in relation to their
temples, their altars, and all their sacred
utensils. The tabernacle, as soon as it was
completed, was consecrated to God by the
unction of oil. Among the Pagan nations,
the consecration of their temples was often
performed with the most sumptuous
offerings and ceremonies; but oil was, on
all occasions, made use of as an element of
the consecration. The lodge is, therefore,
consecrated to denote that henceforth it is
to be set apart as an asylum sacred to the
cultivation of the great masonic principles
of Friendship, Morality, and Brotherly
Love. Thenceforth it becomes to the
conscientious Mason a place worthy of his
reverence; and he is tempted, as he
passes over its threshold, to repeat the
command given to Moses: "Put off thy

shoes from off thy feet, for the place
whereon thou standest is holy ground."

The corn, wine, and oil are appropriately
adopted as the Masonic elements of
consecration, because of the symbolic
signification which they present to the
mind of the Mason. They are enumerated
by David as among the greatest blessings
which we receive from the bounty of
Divine Providence. They were annually
offered by the ancients as the first fruits, in
a thank-offering for the gifts of the earth;
and as representatives of "the corn of
nourishment, the wine of refreshment, and
the oil of joy," they symbolically instruct
the Mason that to the Grand Master of the
Universe he is indebted for the "health,
peace, and plenty" that he enjoys.

After the consecration of the lodge, follows
its dedication. This is a simple ceremony,

and principally consists in the
pronunciation of a formula of words by
which the lodge is declared to be
dedicated to the holy Saints John, followed
by an invocation that "every Brother may
revere their character and imitate their
virtues."

Masonic tradition tells us that our ancient
Brethren dedicated their lodges to King
Solomon, because he was their first Most
Excellent Grand Master; but that modern
Masons dedicate theirs to St. John the
Baptist and St. John the Evangelist,
because they were two eminent patrons of
Masonry. A more appropriate selection of
patrons to whom to dedicate the lodge,
could not easily have been made; since St.
John the Baptist, by announcing the
approach of Christ, and by the mystical
ablution to which he subjected his
proselytes, and which was afterwards

adopted in the ceremony of initiation into
Christianity, might well be considered as
the Grand Hierophant of the Church; while
the mysterious and emblematic nature of
the Apocalypse assimilated the mode of
teaching adopted by St. John the
Evangelist to that practiced by the
fraternity. Our Jewish Brethren usually
dedicate their lodges to King Solomon,
thus retaining their ancient patron,
although they thereby lose the benefit of
that portion of the Lectures which refers to
the "lines parallel." The Grand Lodge of
England, at the union in 1813, agreed to
dedicate to Solomon and Moses, applying
the parallels to the framer of the
tabernacle and the builder of the temple;
but they have no warranty for this in
ancient usage, and it is unfortunately not
the only innovation on the ancient
landmarks that that Grand Lodge has lately
permitted.

The ceremony of dedication, like that of
consecration, finds its archetype in the
remotest antiquity. The Hebrews made no
use of any new thing until they had first
solemnly dedicated it. This ceremony was
performed in relation even to private
houses, as we may learn from the book of
Deuteronomy . [30] The 30th Psalm is a
song said to have been made by David on
the dedication of the altar which he
erected on the threshing-floor of Oman the
Jebusite, after the grievous plague which
had nearly devastated the kingdom.
Solomon, it will be recollected, dedicated
the temple with solemn ceremonies,
prayers, and thank-offerings. The
ceremony of dedication is, indeed, alluded
to in various portions of the Scriptures.

Selden[31] says that among the Jews
sacred things were both dedicated and

consecrated; but that profane things, such
as private houses, etc., were simply
dedicated, without consecration. The same
writer informs us that the Pagans borrowed
the custom of consecrating and dedicating
their sacred edifices, altars, and images,
from the Hebrews.

The Lodge having been thus consecrated
to the solemn objects of Freemasonry, and
dedicated to the patrons of the institution,
it is at length prepared to be constituted.
The ceremony of constitution is then
performed by the Grand Master, who,
rising from his seat, pronounces the
following formulary of constitution:

"In the name of the most Worshipful Grand
Lodge, I now constitute and form you, my
beloved Brethren, into a regular lodge of
Free and Accepted Masons. From this time
forth, I empower you to meet as a regular

lodge, constituted in conformity to the rites
of our Order, and the charges of our
ancient and honorable fraternity;— and may
the Supreme Architect of the Universe
prosper, direct, and counsel you, in all
your doings."

This ceremony places the lodge among the
registered lodges of the jurisdiction in
which it is situated, and gives it a rank and
standing and permanent existence that it
did not have before. In one word, it has, by
the consecration, dedication, and
constitution, become what we technically
term "a just and legally constituted lodge,"
and, as such, is entitled to certain rights
and privileges, of which we shall hereafter
speak. Still, however, although the lodge
has been thus fully and completely
organized, its officers have as yet no legal
existence. To give them this, it is
necessary that they be inducted into their

respective offices, and each officer

solemnly

bound

to

the

faithful

performance of the duties he has
undertaken to discharge. This constitutes

the

ceremony

of

installation.

The

Worshipful Master of the new lodge is
required publicly to submit to the ancient
charges; and then all, except Past Masters,
having retired, he is invested with the Past
Master's degree, and inducted into the
oriental chair of King Solomon. The
Brethren are then introduced, and due
homage is paid to their new Master, after
which the other officers are obligated to
the faithful discharge of their respective
trusts, invested with their insignia of office,
and receive the appropriate charge. This
ceremony must be repeated at every
annual election and change of officers.

The ancient rule was, that when the Grand
Master and his officers attended to

constitute a new lodge, the Deputy Grand
Master invested the new Master, the Grand
Wardens invested the new Wardens, and
the Grand Treasurer and Grand Secretary
invested the Treasurer and Secretary. But
this regulation has become obsolete, and
the whole installation and investiture are
now performed by the Grand Master. On
the occasion of subsequent installations,
the retiring Master installs his successor;
and the latter installs his subordinate
officers.

The ceremony of installation is derived
from the ancient custom of inauguration, of
which we find repeated instances in the
sacred as well as profane writings. Aaron
was inaugurated, or installed, by the
unction of oil, and placing on him the
vestments of the High Priest; and every
succeeding High Priest was in like manner
installed, before he was considered

competent to discharge the duties of his
office. Among the Romans, augurs, priests,
kings, and, in the times of the republic,
consuls were always inaugurated or
installed. And hence, Cicero, who was an
augur, speaking of Hortensius, says, "it
was he who installed me as a member of
the college of augurs, so that I was bound
by the constitution of the order to respect
and honour him as a parent. "[32] The
object and intention of the ancient
inauguration and the Masonic installation
are precisely the same, namely, that of
setting apart and consecrating a person to
the duties of a certain office.

The ceremonies, thus briefly described,
were not always necessary to legalize a
congregation of Masons. Until the year
1717, the custom of confining the
privileges of Masonry, by a warrant of
constitution, to certain individuals, was

wholly unknown. Previous to that time, a
requisite number of Master Masons were
authorized by the ancient charges to
congregate together, temporarily, at their
own discretion, and as best suited their
convenience, and then and there to open
and hold lodges and make Masons;
making, however, their return, and paying
their tribute to the General Assembly, to
which all the fraternity annually repaired,
and by whose awards the craft were
governed.

Preston, speaking of this ancient privilege,
says: "A sufficient number of Masons met
together within a certain district, with the
consent of the sheriff or chief magistrate of
the place, were empowered at this time to
make Masons and practice the rights of
Masonry, without a warrant of
constitution." This privilege, Preston says,
was inherent in them as individuals, and

continued to be enjoyed by the old lodges,
which formed the Grand Lodge in 1717, as
long as they were in existence.

But on the 24th June, 1717, the Grand
Lodge of England adopted the following
regulation: "That the privilege of

assembling as Masons, which had hitherto
been unlimited, should be vested in
certain lodges or assemblies of Masons,
convened in certain places; and that every
lodge to be hereafter convened, except
the four old lodges at this time existing,
should be legally authorized to act by a
warrant from the Grand Master for the time
being, granted to certain individuals by
petition, with the consent and approbation
of the Grand Lodge in communication; and
that, without such warrant, no lodge should
be hereafter deemed regular or
constitutional."

This regulation has ever since continued in
force, and it is the original law under
which warrants of constitution are now
granted by Grand Lodges for the
organization of

their

subordinates.

Chapter II.

Of Lodges under Dispensation.

It is evident, from what has already been
said, that there are two kinds of lodges,
each regular in itself, but each peculiar
and distinct in its character. There are
lodges working under a dispensation, and
lodges working under a warrant of
constitution. Each of these will require a
separate consideration. The former will be
the subject of the present chapter.

A lodge working under a dispensation is a
merely temporary body, originated for a
special purpose, and is therefore
possessed of very circumscribed powers.
The dispensation, or authority under which
it acts, expressly specifies that the persons
to whom it is given are allowed to
congregate that they may "admit, enter,
pass, and raise Freemasons;" no other
powers are conferred either by words or
implication, and, indeed, sometimes the
dispensation states, that that congregation

is to be "with the sole intent and view, that
the Brethren so congregated, admitted,
entered, and made, when they become a
sufficient number, may be duly warranted
and constituted for being and holding a
regular lodge." [33]

A lodge under dispensation is simply the
creature of the Grand Master. To him it is
indebted for its existence, and on his will
depends the duration of that existence. He
may at any time revoke the dispensation,
and the dissolution of the lodge would be
the instant result. Hence a lodge working
under a dispensation can scarcely, with
strict technical propriety, be called a
lodge; it is, more properly speaking, a
congregation of Masons, acting as the
proxy of the Grand Master.

With these views of the origin and
character of lodges under dispensation,

we will be better prepared to understand
the nature and extent of the powers which
they possess.

A lodge under dispensation can make no
bye-laws. It is governed, during its
temporary existence, by the general
Constitutions of the Order and the rules
and regulations of the Grand Lodge in
whose jurisdiction it is situated. In fact, as
the bye-laws of no lodge are operative
until they are confirmed by the Grand
Lodge, and as a lodge working under a
dispensation ceases to exist as such as
soon as the Grand Lodge meets, it is
evident that it would be absurd to frame a
code of laws which would have no efficacy,
for want of proper confirmation, and
which, when the time and opportunity for
confirmation had arrived, would be
needless, as the society for which they
were framed would then have no lecral

existence— a new body (the warranted
lodge) having taken its place.

A lodge under dispensation cannot elect
officers. The Master and Wardens are
nominated by the Brethren, and, if this
nomination is approved, they are
appointed by the Grand Master. In giving
them permission to meet and make
Masons, he gave them no power to do
anything else. A dispensation is itself a
setting aside of the law, and an exception
to a general principle; it must, therefore,
be construed literally. What is not granted
in express terms, is not granted at all. And,
therefore, as nothing is said of the election
of officers, no such election can be held.
The Master may, however, and always
does for convenience, appoint a
competent Brother to keep a record of the
proceedings; but this is a temporary
appointment, at the pleasure of the Master,

whose deputy or assistant he is; for the
Grand Lodge looks only to the Master for
the records, and the office is not legally
recognized. In like manner, he may depute
a trusty Brother to take charge of the funds,
and must, of course, from time to time,
appoint the deacons and tiler for the
necessary working of the lodge.

As there can be no election, neither can
there be any installation, which, of course,
always presumes a previous election for a
determinate period. Besides, the
installation of officers is a part of the
ceremony of constitution, and therefore
not even the Master and Wardens of a
lodge under dispensation are entitled to
be thus solemnly inducted into office.

A lodge under dispensation can elect no
members. The Master and Wardens, who
are named in the dispensation, are, in

point of fact, the only persons recognized
as constituting the lodge. To them is
granted the privilege, as proxies of the
Grand Master, of making Masons; and for
this purpose they are authorized to
congregate a sufficient number of Brethren
to assist them in the ceremonies. But
neither the Master and Wardens, nor the
Brethren, thus congregated have received
any power of electing members. Nor are
the persons made in a lodge under
dispensation, to be considered as
members of the lodge; for, as has already
been shown, they have none of the rights
and privileges which attach to
membership— they can neither make
bye-laws nor elect officers. They,
however, become members of the lodge
as soon as it receives its warrant of
constitution.

Chapter III.

Of Lodges Working under a Warrant of
Constitution.

Section I.

Of the Powers and Rights of a Lodge.

In respect to the powers and privileges
possessed by a lodge working under a
warrant of constitution, we may say, as a
general principle, that whatever it does
possess is inherent in it— nothing has been
delegated by either the Grand Master or
the Grand Lodge— but that all its rights and
powers are derived originally from the
ancient regulations, made before the
existence of Grand Lodges, and that what
it does not possess, are the powers which
were conceded by its predecessors to the
Grand Lodge. This is evident from the
history of warrants of constitution, the
authority under which subordinate lodges
act. The practice of applying by petition to
the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge, for

a warrant to meet as a regular lodge,
commenced in the year 1718. Previous to
that time, Freemasons were empowered
by inherent privileges, vested, from time
immemorial, in the whole fraternity, to
meet as occasion might require, under the
direction of some able architect; and the
proceedings of these meetings, being
approved by a majority of the Brethren
convened at another lodge in the same
district, were deemed constitutional. [34]
But in 1718, a year after the formation of
the Grand Lodge of England, this power of
meeting _ad libitum_ was resigned into the
hands of that body, and it was then agreed
that no lodges should thereafter meet,
unless authorized so to do by a warrant
from the Grand Master, and with the
consent of the Grand Lodge. But as a
memorial that this abandonment of the
ancient right was entirely voluntary, it was
at the same time resolved that this inherent

privilege should continue to be enjoyed
by the four old lodges who formed the
Grand Lodge. And, still more effectually to
secure the reserved rights of the lodges, it
was also solemnly determined, that while
the Grand Lodge possesses the inherent

right of making new regulations for the

good of the fraternity, provided that the

old landmarks be carefully preserved_,

yet that these regulations, to be of force,

must be proposed and agreed to at the

third quarterly communication preceding
the annual grand feast, and submitted to
the perusal of all the Brethren, in writing,
even of the youngest entered apprentice;
"_the approbation and consent of the
majority of all the Brethren present being

absolutely necessary, to make the same
binding and obligatory^ "[35]

The corollary from all this is clear. All the
rights, powers, and privileges, not

conceded, by express enactment of the
fraternity, to the Grand Lodge, have been
reserved to themselves. Subordinate
lodges are the assemblies of the craft in
their primary capacity, and the Grand
Lodge is the Supreme Masonic Tribunal,
only because it consists of and is
constituted by a representation of these
primary assemblies. And, therefore, as
every act of the Grand Lodge is an act of
the whole fraternity thus represented,
each new regulation that may be made is
not an assumption of authority on the part
of the Grand Lodge, but a new concession
on the part of the subordinate lodges.

This doctrine of the reserved rights of the
lodges is very important, and should never
be forgotten, because it affords much aid
in the decision of many obscure points of
masonic jurisprudence. The rule is, that
any doubtful power exists and is inherent

in the subordinate lodges, unless there is
an express regulation conferring it on the
Grand Lodge. With this preliminary view,
we may proceed to investigate the nature
and extent of these reserved powers of the
subordinate lodcres.

A lodge has the right of selecting its own
members, with which the Grand Lodge
cannot interfere. This is a right that the
lodges have expressly reserved to
themselves, and the stipulation is inserted
in the "general regulations" in the
following words:

"No man can be entered a Brother in any
particular lodge, or admitted a member
thereof, without the unanimous consent of
all the members of that lodge then present,
when the candidate is proposed, and when
their consent is formally asked by the
Master. They are to give their consent in

their own prudent way, either virtually or
in form, but with unanimity. Nor is this
inherent privilege subject to a
dispensation, because the members of a
particular lodge are the best judges of it;
and because, if a turbulent member should
be imposed upon them, it might spoil their
harmony, or hinder the freedom of their
communication; or even break and
disperse the lodge, which ought to be
avoided by all true and faithful." [36]

But although a lodge has the inherent right
to require unanimity in the election of a
candidate, it is not necessarily restricted to
such a degree of rigor.

A lodge has the right to elect its own
officers. This right is guaranteed to it by
the words of the Warrant of Constitution.
Still the right is subject to certain
restraining regulations. The election must

be held at the proper time, which,
according to the usage of Masonry, in most
parts of the world, is on or immediately
before the festival of St. John the
Evangelist. The proper qualifications must
be regarded. A member cannot be elected
as Master, unless he has previously served
as a Warden, except in the instance of a
new lodge, or other case of emergency.
Where both of the Wardens refuse
promotion, where the presiding Master
will not permit himself to be reelected,
and where there is no Past Master who will
consent to take the office, then, and then
only, can a member be elected from the
floor to preside over the lodge.

By the Constitutions of England, only the
Master and Treasurer are elected
officers. [37] The Wardens and all the other
officers are appointed by the Master, who
has not, however, the power of removal

after appointment, except by consent of
the lodge; [38] but American usage gives
the election of all the officers, except the
deacons, stewards, and, in some instances,
the tiler, to the lodge.

As a consequence of the right of election,
every lodge has the power of installing its
officers, subject to the same regulations, in
relation to time and qualifications, as given
in the case of elections.

The Master must be installed by a Past
Master, [39] but after his own installation he
has the power to install the rest of the
officers. The ceremony of installation is not
a mere vain and idle one, but is productive
of important results. Until the Master and
Wardens of a lodge are installed, they
cannot represent the lodge in the Grand
Lodge, nor, if it be a new lodge, can it be
recorded and recognized on the register

of the Grand Lodge. No officer can
permanently take possession of the office
to which he has been elected, until he has
been duly installed. [40] The rule of the
craft is, that the old officer holds on until
his successor is installed, and this rule is of
universal application to officers of every
grade, from the Tiler of a subordinate
lodge, to the Grand Master of Masons.

Every lodge that has been duly
constituted, and its officers installed, is
entitled to be represented in the Grand
Lodge, and to form, indeed, a constituent
part of that body. [41] The representatives
of a lodge are its Master and two
Wardens. [42] This character of
representation was established in 1718,
when the four old lodges, which organized
the Grand Lodge of England, agreed "to
extend their patronage to every lodge
which should hereafter be constituted by

the Grand Lodge, according to the new
regulations of the society; and while such
lodges acted in conformity to the ancient
constitutions of the Order, to admit their
Masters and Wardens to share with them
all the privileges of the Grand Lodge,
excepting precedence of rank. "[43]
Formerly all Master Masons were
permitted to sit in the Grand Lodge, or, as
it was then called, the General Assembly,
and represent their lodge; and therefore
this restricting the representation to the
three superior officers was, in fact, a
concession of the craft. This regulation is
still generally observed; but I regret to see
a few Grand Lodges in this country
innovating on the usage, and still further
confining the representation to the Masters
alone.

The Master and Wardens are not merely in
name the representatives of the lodge, but

are bound, on all questions that come
before the Grand Lodge, truly to represent
their lodge, and vote according to its
instructions. This doctrine is expressly laid
down in the General Regulations, in the
following words: "The majority of every
particular lodge, when congregated, not
else, shall have the privilege of giving
instructions to their Master and Wardens,
before the meeting of the Grand Chapter,
or Quarterly Communication; because the
said officers are their representatives, and
are supposed to speak the sentiments of
their Brethren at the said Grand
Lodge." [44]

Every lodge has the power to frame
bye-laws for its own government,
provided they are not contrary to, nor
inconsistent with, the general regulations
of the Grand Lodge; nor the landmarks of
the order. [45] But these bye-laws will not

be valid, until they are submitted to and
approved by the Grand Lodge. And this is
the case, also, with every subsequent
alteration of them, which must in like
manner be submitted to the Grand Lodge
for its approval.

A lodge has the right of suspending or
excluding a member from his membership
in the lodge; but it has no power to expel
him from the rights and privileges of
Masonry, except with the consent of the
Grand Lodge. A subordinate lodge tries its
delinquent member, and, if guilty,
declares him expelled; but the sentence is
of no force until the Grand Lodge, under
whose jurisdiction it is working, has
confirmed it. And it is optional with the
Grand Lodge to do so, or, as is frequently
done, to reverse the decision and reinstate
the Brother. Some of the lodges in this
country claim the right to expel,

independently of the action of the Grand
Lodge; but the claim is not valid. The very
fact that an expulsion is a penalty, affecting
the general relations of the punished party
with the whole fraternity, proves that its
exercise never could, with propriety, be
intrusted to a body so circumscribed in its
authority as a subordinate lodge.
Accordingly, the general practice of the
fraternity is opposed to it; and therefore all
expulsions are reported to the Grand
Lodge, not merely as matters of
information, but that they may be
confirmed by that body. The English
Constitutions are explicit on this subject.
"In the Grand Lodge alone," they declare,
"resides the power of erasing lodges and
expelling Brethren from the craft, a power
which it ought not to delegate to any
subordinate authority in England." They
allow, however, a subordinate lodge to
_exclude_ a member from the lodge; in

which case he is furnished with a
certificate of the circumstances of his
exclusion, and then may join any other
lodge that will accept him, after being
made acquainted with the fact of his
exclusion, and its cause. This usage has not
been adopted in this country.

A lodge has a right to levy such annual
contribution for membership as the
majority of the Brethren see fit. This is
entirely a matter of contract, with which
the Grand Lodge, or the craft in general,
have nothing to do. It is, indeed, a modern
usage, unknown to the fraternity of former
times, and was instituted for the
convenience and support of the private
lodges.

A lodge is entitled to select a name for
itself, to be, however, approved by the
Grand Lodge. [46] But the Grand Lodge

alone has the power of designating the
number by which the lodge shall be
distinguished. By its number alone is
every lodge recognized in the register of
the Grand Lodge, and according to their
numbers is the precedence of the lodges
regulated.

Finally, a lodge has certain rights in
relation to its Warrant of Constitution. This
instrument having been granted by the
Grand Lodge, can be revoked by no other
authority. The Grand Master, therefore,
has no power, as he has in the case of a
lodge under dispensation, to withdraw its
Warrant, except temporarily, until the next
meeting of the Grand Lodge. Nor is it in
the power of even the majority of the
lodge, by any act of their own, to resign
the Warrant. For it has been laid down as a
law, that if the majority of the lodge should
determine to quit the lodge, or to resign

their warrant, such action would be of no
efficacy, because the Warrant of
Constitution, and the power of assembling,
would remain with the rest of the
members, who adhere to their
allegiance. [47] But if all the members
withdraw themselves, their Warrant
ceases and becomes extinct. If the conduct
of a lodge has been such as clearly to
forfeit its charter, the Grand Lodge alone
can decide that question and pronounce
the forfeiture.

Section II.

Of the Duties of a Lodge.

So far in relation to the rights and
privileges of subordinate lodges. But there
are certain duties and obligations equally
binding upon these bodies, and certain
powers, in the exercise of which they are
restricted. These will next engage our
attention.

The first great duty, not only of every
lodge, but of every Mason, is to see that
the landmarks of the Order shall never be
impaired. The General Regulations of
Masonry— to which every Master, at his
installation, is bound to acknowledge his
submission— declare that "it is not in the
power of any man, or body of men, to
make innovations in the body of Masonry."

And, hence, no lodge, without violating all
the implied and express obligations into
which it has entered, can, in any manner,
alter or amend the work, lectures, and
ceremonies of the institution. As its
members have received the ritual from
their predecessors, so are they bound to
transmit it, unchanged, in the slightest
degree, to their successors. In the Grand
Lodge, alone, resides the power of
enacting new regulations; but, even _it_
must be careful that, in every such
regulation, the landmarks are preserved.
When, therefore, we hear young and
inexperienced Masters speak of making
improvements (as they arrogantly call
them) upon the old lectures or
ceremonies, we may be sure that such
Masters either know nothing of the duties
they owe to the craft, or are willfully
forgetful of the solemn obligation which
they have contracted. Some may suppose

that the ancient ritual of the Order is
imperfect, and requires amendment. One
may think that the ceremonies are too
simple, and wish to increase them;
another, that they are too complicated, and
desire to simplify them; one may be
displeased with the antiquated language;
another, with the character of the
traditions; a third, with something else.
But, the rule is imperative and absolute,
that no change can or must be made to
gratify individual taste. As the Barons of
England, once, with unanimous voice,
exclaimed, "Nolumus leges Angli mutare!"
so do all good Masons respond to every
attempt at innovation, "We are unwilling to
alter the customs of Freemasonry."

In relation to the election of officers, a
subordinate lodge is allowed to exercise
no discretion. The names and duties of
these officers are prescribed, partly by the

landmarks or the ancient constitutions, and
partly by the regulations of various Grand
Lodges. While

the

landmarks

preserved, a Grand Lodge may add to the
list of officers as it pleases; and whatever
may be its regulation, the subordinate
lodges are bound to obey it; nor can any
such lodge create new offices nor abolish
old ones without the consent of the Grand
Lodge.

Lodges are also bound to elect their
officers at a time which is always
determined; not by the subordinate, but
by the Grand Lodge. Nor can a lodge
anticipate or postpone it unless by a
dispensation from the Grand Master.

No lodge can, at an extra meeting, alter or
amend the proceedings of a regular
meeting. If such were not the rule, an
unworthy Master might, by stealth,

convoke an extra meeting of a part of his
lodge, and, by expunging or altering the
proceedings of the previous regular
meeting, or any particular part of them,
annul any measures or resolutions that
were not consonant with his peculiar
views.

No lodge can interfere with the work or
business of any other lodge, without its
permission. This is an old regulation,
founded on those principles of comity and
brotherly love that should exist among all
Masons. It is declared in the manuscript
charges, written in the reign of James II.,
and in the possession of the Lodge of
Antiquity, at London, that "no Master or
Fellow shall supplant others of their work;
that is to say, that, if he hath taken a work,
or else stand Master of any work, that he
shall not put him out, unless he be unable
of cunnincr to make an end of his work."

And, hence, no lodge can pass or raise a
candidate who was initiated, or initiate one
who was rejected, in another lodge. "It
would be highly improper," says the
Ahiman Rezon, "in any lodge, to confer a
degree on a Brother who is not of their
house-hold; for, every lodge ought to be
competent to manage their own business,
and are the best judges of the
qualifications of their own members."

I do not intend, at the present time, to
investigate the qualifications of
candidates— as that subject will, in itself,
afford ample materials for a future
investigation; but, it is necessary that I
should say something of the restrictions
under which every lodge labors in respect
to the admission of persons applying for
degrees.

In the first place, no lodge can initiate a

candidate, "without previous notice, and
due examination into his character; and
not unless his petition has been read at
one regular meeting and acted on at
another." This is in accordance with the
ancient regulations; but, an exception to it
is allowed in the case of an emergency,
when the lodge may read the petition for
admission, and, if the applicant is well
recommended, may proceed at once to
elect and initiate him. In some
jurisdictions, the nature of the emergency
must be stated to the Grand Master, who, if
he approves, will grant a dispensation;
but, in others, the Master, or Master and
Wardens, are permitted to be competent
judges, and may proceed to elect and
initiate, without such dispensation. The
Grand Lodge of South Carolina adheres to
the former custom, and that of England to
the latter.

Another regulation is, that no lodge can
confer more than two degrees, at one
communication, on the same candidate.
The Grand Lodge of England is still more
stringent on this subject, and declares that
"no candidate shall be permitted to
receive more than one degree, on the
same day; nor shall a higher degree in
Masonry be conferred on any Brother at a
less interval than four weeks from his
receiving a previous degree, nor until he
has passed an examination, in open lodge,
in that degree." This rule is also in force in
South Carolina and several other of the
American jurisdictions. But, the law which
forbids the whole three degrees of Ancient
Craft Masonry to be conferred, at the same
communication, on one candidate, is
universal in its application, and, as such,
may be deemed one of the ancient
landmarks of the Order.

There is another rule, which seems to be of
universal extent, and is, indeed, contained
in the General Regulations of 1767, to the
following effect: "No lodge shall make
more than five new Brothers at one and the
same time, without an urgent necessity."

All lodges are bound to hold their
meetings at least once in every calendar
month; and every lodge neglecting so to
do for one year, thereby forfeits its warrant
of constitution.

The subject of the removal of lodges is the
last thing that shall engage our attention.
Here the ancient regulations of the craft
have adopted many guards to prevent the
capricious or improper removal of a lodge
from its regular place of meeting. In the
first place, no lodge can be removed from
the town in which it is situated, to any other
place, without the consent of the Grand

Lodge. But, a lodge may remove from one
part of the town to another, with the
consent of the members, under the
following restrictions: The removal cannot
be made without the Master's knowledge;
nor can any motion, for that purpose, be
presented in his absence. When such a
motion is made, and properly seconded,
the Master will order summonses to every
member, specifying the business, and
appointing a day for considering and
determining the affair. And if then a
majority of the lodge, with the Master, or
two-thirds, without him, consent to the
removal, it shall take place; but notice
thereof must be sent, at once, to the Grand
Lodge. The General Regulations of 1767
further declare, that such removal must be
approved by the Grand Master. I suppose
that where the removal of the lodge was
only a matter of convenience to the
members, the Grand Lodge would hardly

interfere, but leave the whole subject to
their discretion; but, where the removal
would be calculated to affect the interests
of the lodge, or of the fraternity— as in the
case of a removal to a house of bad
reputation, or to a place of evident
insecurity— I have no doubt that the Grand
Lodge, as the conservator of the character
and safety of the institution, would have a
right to interpose its authority, and prevent
the improper removal.

I have thus treated, as concisely as the
important nature of the subjects would
permit, of the powers, privileges, duties,
and obligations of lodges, and have
endeavored to embrace, within the limits
of the discussion, all those prominent
principles of the Order, which, as they
affect the character and operations of the
craft in their primary assemblies, may
properly be referred to the Law of

Subordinate

Lodges.

Chapter IV.

Of the Officers of a Subordinate Lodcre.

Section I.

_Of the Officers in General. _

Four officers, at least, the ancient customs
of the craft require in every lodge; and
they are consequently found throughout
the globe. These are the Master, the two
Wardens, and the Tiler. Almost equally
universal are the offices of Treasurer,
Secretary, and two Deacons. But, besides
these, there may be additional officers
appointed by different Grand Lodges. The
Grand Lodge of England, for instance,
requires the appointment of an officer,
called the "Inner Guard." The Grand
Orient of France has prescribed a variety
of officers, which are unknown to English
and American Masonry. The Grand Lodges
of England and South Carolina direct that
two Stewards shall be appointed, while

some other Grand Lodges make no such
requisition. Ancient usage seems to have
recognized the following officers of a
subordinate lodge: the Master, two
Wardens, Treasurer, Secretary, two
Deacons, two Stewards, and Tiler; and I
shall therefore treat of the duties and
powers of these officers only, in the course
of the present chapter.

The officers of a lodge are elected
annually. In this country, the election takes
place on the festival of St. John the
Evangelist, or at the meeting immediately
previous; but, in this latter case, the duties
of the offices do not commence until St.
John's day, which may, therefore, be
considered as the beginning of the
masonic year.

Dalcho lays down the rule, that "no
Freemason chosen into any office can

refuse to serve (unless he has before filled
the same office), without incurring the
penalties established by the bye-laws."
Undoubtedly a lodge may enact such a
regulation, and affix any reasonable
penalty; but I am not aware of any ancient
regulation which makes it incumbent on
subordinate lodges to do so.

If any of the subordinate officers, except
the Master and Wardens, die, or be
removed from office, during the year, the
lodge may, under the authority of a
dispensation from the Grand Master, enter
into an election to supply the vacancy. But
in the case of the death or removal of the
Master or either of the Wardens, no
election can be held to supply the
vacancy, even by dispensation, for
reasons which will appear when I come to
treat of those offices.

No officer can resign his office after he has
been installed. Every officer is elected for
twelve months, and at his installation
solemnly promises to perform the duties of
that office until the next regular day of
election; and hence the lodge cannot
permit him, by a resignation, to violate his
obligation of office.

Another rule is, that every officer holds on
to his office until his successor has been
installed. It is the installation, and not the
election, which puts an officer into
possession; and the faithful management of
the affairs of Masonry requires, that
between the election and installation of his
successor, the predecessor shall not
vacate the office, but continue to discharge
its duties.

An office can be vacated only by death,
permanent removal from the jurisdiction,

or expulsion. Suspension does not vacate,
but only suspends the performance of the
duties of the office, which must then be
temporarily discharged by some other
person, to be appointed from time to time;
for, as soon as the suspended officer is
restored, he resumes the dignities and
duties of his office.

Section II.

Of the Worshipful Master.

This is probably the most important office
in the whole system of Masonry, as, upon
the intelligence, skill, and fidelity of the
Masters of our lodges, the entire institution
is dependent for its prosperity. It is an
office which is charged with heavy
responsibilities, and, as a just
consequence, is accompanied by the
investiture of many important powers.

A necessary qualification of the Master of a
lodge is, that he must have previously
served in the office of a Warden. [48] This
qualification is sometimes dispensed with
in the case of new lodges, or where no
member of an old lodge, who has served
as a Warden, will accept the office of

Master. But it is not necessary that he
should have served as a Warden in the
lodge of which he is proposed to be
elected Master. The discharge of the
duties of a Warden, by regular election
and installation in any other lodge, and at
any former period, will be a sufficient
qualification.

One of the most important duties of the
Master of a lodge is, to see that the edicts
and regulations of the Grand Lodge are
obeyed by his Brethren, and that his
officers faithfully discharge their duties.

The Master has particularly in charge the
warrant of Constitution, which must always
be present in his lodge, when opened.

The Master has a right to call a special
meeting of his lodge whenever he pleases,
and is the sole judge of any emergency

which may require such special
communication.

He has, also, the right of closing his lodge
at any hour that he may deem expedient,
notwithstanding the whole business of the
evening may not have been transacted.
This regulation arises from the unwritten
law of Masonry. As the Master is
responsible to the Grand Lodge for the
fidelity of the work done in his lodge, and
as the whole of the labor is, therefore,
performed under his superintendence, it
follows that, to enable him to discharge
this responsibility, he must be invested
with the power of commencing, of
continuing, or of suspending labor at such
time as he may, in his wisdom, deem to be
the most advantageous to the edifice of
Masonry.

It follows from this rule that a question of

adjournment cannot be entertained in a
lodge. The adoption of a resolution to
adjourn, would involve the necessity of the
Master to obey it. The power, therefore, of
controlling the work, would be taken out of
his hands and placed in those of the
members, which would be in direct
conflict with the duties imposed upon him
by the ritual. The doctrine that a lodge
cannot adjourn, but must be closed or
called off at the pleasure of the Master,
appears now to me to be very generally
admitted.

The Master and his two Wardens constitute
the representatives of the lodge in the
Grand Lodge, and it is his duty to attend
the communications of that body "on all
convenient occasions. "[49] When there, he
is faithfully to represent his lodge, and on
all questions discussed, to obey its
instructions, voting in every case rather

against his own convictions than against
the expressed wish of his lodge.

The Master presides not only over the
symbolic work of the lodge, but also over
its business deliberations, and in either
case his decisions are reversible only by
the Grand Lodge. There can be no appeal
from his decision, on any question, to the
lodge. He is supreme in his lodge, so far as
the lodge is concerned, being amenable
for his conduct in the government of it, not
to its members, but to the Grrand Lodge
alone. If an appeal were proposed, it
would be his duty, for the preservation of
discipline, to refuse to put the question. If a
member is aggrieved by the conduct or
decisions of the Master, he has his redress
by an appeal to the Grrand Lodge, which
will, of course, see that the Master does not
rule his lodge "in an unjust or arbitrary
manner." But such a thing as an appeal

from the Master of the lodge to its
members is unknown in Masonry.

This may, at first sight, appear to be giving
too despotic power to the Master. But a
slight reflection will convince any one that
there can be but little danger of
oppression from one so guarded and
controlled as a Master is, by the sacred
obligations of his office, and the
supervision of the Grand Lodge, while the
placing in the hands of the craft so
powerful, and at times, and with bad
spirits, so annoying a privilege as that of
immediate appeal, would necessarily tend
to impair the energies and lessen the
dignity of the Master, while it would be
subversive of that spirit of discipline which
pervades every part of the institution, and
to which it is mainly indebted for its
prosperity and perpetuity.

The ancient charges rehearsed at the
installation of a Master, prescribe the
various moral qualifications which are
required in the aspirant for that elevated
and responsible office. He is to be a good
man, and peaceable citizen or subject, a
respecter of the laws, and a lover of his
Brethren— cultivating the social virtues and
promoting the general good of society as
well as of his own Order.

Within the last few years, the standard of
intellectual qualifications has been greatly
elevated. And it is now admitted that the
Master of a lodge, to do justice to the
exalted office which he holds, to the craft
over whom he presides, and to the
candidates whom he is to instruct, should
be not only a man of irreproachable moral
character, but also of expanded intellect
and liberal education. Still, as there is no
express law upon this subject, the

selection of a Master and the
determination of his qualifications must be
left to the judgment and good sense of the
members.

Section III.

Of the Wardens.

The Senior and Junior Warden are the
assistants of the Master in the government
of the lodge. They are selected from
among the members on the floor, the
possession of a previous office not being,
as in the case of the Master, a necessary
qualification for election. In England they
are appointed by the Master, but in this
country they are universally elected by the
lodge.

During the temporary absence of the
Master the Senior Warden has the right of
presiding, though he may, and often does
by courtesy, invite a Past Master to assume
the chair. In like manner, in the absence of
both Master and Senior Warden, the Junior

Warden will preside, and competent
Brethren will by him be appointed to fill
the vacant seats of the Wardens. But if the
Master and Junior Warden be present, and
the Senior Warden be absent, the Junior
Warden does not occupy the West, but
retains his own station, the Master
appointing some Brother to occupy the
station of the Senior Warden. For the Junior
Warden succeeds by law only to the office
of Master, and, unless that office be vacant,
he is bound to fulfill the duties of the office
to which he has been obligated.

In case of the death, removal from the
jurisdiction, or expulsion of the Master, by
the Grand Lodge, no election can be held
until the constitutional period. The Senior
Warden will take the Master's place and
preside over the lodge, while his seat will
be temporarily filled from time to time by
appointment. The Senior Warden being in

fact still in existence, and only discharging
one of the highest duties of his office, that
of presiding in the absence of the Master,
his office cannot be declared vacant and
there can be no election for it. In such
case, the Junior Warden, for the reason
already assigned, will continue at his own
station in the South.

In case of the death, removal, or expulsion
of both Master and Senior Warden, the
Junior Warden will discharge the duties of
the Mastership and make temporary
appointments of both Wardens. It must
always be remembered that the Wardens
succeed according to seniority to the office
of Master when vacant, but that neither can
legally discharge the duties of the other. It
must also be remembered that when a
Warden succeeds to the government of the
lodge, he does not become the Master; he
is still only a Warden discharging the

functions of a higher vacated station, as
one of the expressed duties of his own
office. A recollection of these distinctions
will enable us to avoid much
embarrassment in the consideration of all
the questions incident to this subject. If the
Master be present, the Wardens assist him
in the government of the lodge. The Senior
Warden presides over the craft while at
labor, and the Junior when they are in
refreshment. Formerly the examination of
visitors was intrusted to the Junior Warden,
but this duty is now more appropriately
performed by the Stewards or a special
committee appointed for that purpose.

The Senior Warden has the appointment of
the Senior Deacon, and the Junior Warden
that of the Stewards.

Section IV.

Of the Treasurer.

Of so much importance is this office
deemed, that in English Lodges, while all
the other officers are appointed by the
Master, the Treasurer alone is elected by
the lodge. It is, however, singular, that in
the ritual of installation, Preston furnishes
no address to the Treasurer on his
investiture. Webb, however, has supplied
the omission, and the charge given in his
work to this officer, on the night of his
installation, having been universally
acknowledged and adopted by the craft in
this country, will furnish us with the most
important points of the law in relation to
his duties.

It is, then, in the first place, the duty of the

Treasurer "to receive all moneys from the
hands of the Secretary." The Treasurer is
only the banker of the lodge. All fees for
initiation, arrearages of members, and all
other dues to the lodge, should be first
received by the Secretary, and paid
immediately over to the Treasurer for safe
keeping.

The keeping of just and regular accounts is
another duty presented to the Treasurer.
As soon as he has received an amount of
money from the Secretary, he should
transfer the account of it to his books. By
this means, the Secretary and Treasurer
become mutual checks upon each other,
and the safety of the funds of the lodge is
secured.

The Treasurer is not only the banker, but
also the disbursing officer of the lodge; but
he is directed to pay no money except with

the consent of the lodge and on the order
of the Worshipful Master. It seems to me,
therefore, that every warrant drawn on him
should be signed by the Master, and the
action of the lodge attested by the
counter-signature of the Secretary.

It is usual, in consequence of the great
responsibility of the Treasurer, to select
some Brother of worldly substance for the
office; and still further to insure the safety
of the funds, by exacting from him a bond,
with sufficient security. He sometimes
receives a per centage, or a fixed salary,
for his

services.

Section V.

Of the Secretary.

It is the duty of the Secretary to record all
the proceedings of the lodge, "which may
be committed to paper;" to conduct the
correspondence of the lodge, and to
receive all moneys due the lodge from any
source whatsoever. He is, therefore, the
recording, corresponding, and receiving
officer of the lodge. By receiving the
moneys due to the lodge in the first place,
and then paying them over to the
Treasurer, he becomes, as I have already
observed, a check upon that officer.

In view of the many laborious duties which
devolve upon him, the Secretary, in many
lodges, receives a compensation for his
services.

Should the Treasurer or Secretary die or
be expelled, there is no doubt that an
election for a successor, to fill the
unexpired term, may be held by
dispensation from the Grand Master. But
the incompetency of either of these
officers to perform his duties, by reason of
the infirmity of sickness or removal from
the seat of the lodge, will not, I think,
authorize such an election. Because the
original officer may recover from his
infirmity, or return to his residence, and, in
either case, having been elected and
installed for one year, he must remain the
Secretary or Treasurer until the expiration
of the period for which he had been so
elected and installed, and, therefore, on
his recovery or his return, is entitled to
resume all the prerogatives and functions
of his office. The case of death, or of
expulsion, which is, in fact, masonic death,

is different, because all the rights
possessed during life cease _ex
necessitate rei_, and forever lapse at the
time of the said physical or masonic death;
and in the latter case, a restoration to all
the rights and privileges of Masonry would
not restore the party to any office which he
had held at the time of his expulsion.

Section VI.

Of the Deacons.

In every lodge there are two of these
officers— a Senior and a Junior Deacon.
They are not elected, but appointed; the
former by the Master, and the latter by the
Senior Warden.

The duties of these officers are many and
important; but they are so well defined in
the ritual as to require no further
consideration in this place.

The only question that here invites our
examination is, whether the Deacons, as
appointed officers, are removable at the
pleasure of the officers who appointed
them; or, whether they retain their offices,
like the Master and Wardens, until the

expiration of the year. Masonic authorities
are silent on this subject; but, basing my
judgment upon analogy, I am inclined to
think that they are not removable: all the
officers of a lodge are chosen to serve for
one year, or, from one festival of St. John
the Evangelist to the succeeding one. This
has been the invariable usage in all
lodges, and neither in the monitorial
ceremonies of installation, nor in any rules
or regulations which I have seen, is any
exception to this usage made in respect to
Deacons. The written as well as the oral
law of Masonry being silent on this subject,
we are bound to give them the benefit of
this silence, and place them in the same
favorable position as that occupied by the
superior officers, who, we know, by
express law are entitled to occupy their
stations for one year. Moreover, the power
of removal is too important to be exercised
except under the sanction of an expressed

law, and is contrary to the whole spirit of
Masonry, which, while it invests a
presiding officer with the largest extent of
prerogative, is equally careful of the rights
of the youngest member of the fraternity.

From these reasons I am compelled to
believe that the Deacons, although
originally appointed by the Master and
Senior Warden, are not removable by
either, but retain their offices until the
expiration of the year.

Section VII.

Of the Stewards.

The Stewards, who are two in number, are
appointed by the Junior Warden, and sit on
the right and left of him in the lodge. Their
original duties were, "to assist in the
collection of dues and subscriptions; to
keep an account of the lodge expenses; to
see that the tables are properly furnished
at refreshment, and that every Brother is
suitably provided for." They are also
considered as the assistants of the Deacons

in the discharge of their duties, and, lately,
some lodges are beginning to confide to
them the important trusts of a standing
committee for the examination of visitors

and the preparation of candidates.

What has been said in relation to the

removal of the Deacons in the preceding
section, is equally applicable to the
Stewards.

Section VIII.

Of the Tiler.

This is an office of great importance, and
must, from the peculiar nature of our
institution, have existed from its very
beginning. No lodge could ever have been

opened until a Tiler was appointed, and
stationed to guard its portals from the
approach of "cowans and eavesdroppers."
The qualifications requisite for the office of
a Tiler are, that he must be "a worthy
Master Mason." An Entered Apprentice, or
a Fellow Craft, cannot tile a lodge, even
though it be opened in his own degree. To
none but Master Masons can this important
duty of guardianship be intrusted. The
Tiler is not necessarily a member of the
lodge which he tiles. There is no
regulation requiring this qualification. In

fact, in large cities, one Brother often acts
as the Tiler of several lodges. If, however,
he is a member of the lodge, his office
does not deprive him of the rights of
membership, and in ballotings for
candidates, election of officers, or other
important questions, he is entitled to
exercise his privilege of voting, in which
case the Junior Deacon will temporarily
occupy his station, while he enters the
lodge to deposit his ballot. This appears to
be the general usage of the craft in this
country.

The Tiler is sometimes elected by the
lodge, and sometimes appointed by the
Master. It seems generally to be admitted
that he may be removed from office for
misconduct or neglect of duty, by the
lodge, if he has been elected, and by the
Master, if he has been appointed.

Chapter V.

Of Rules of Order.

The safety of the minority, the preservation
of harmony, and the dispatch of business,
all require that there should be, in every
well-regulated society, some rules and
forms for the government of their
proceedings, and, as has been justly

observed

by

an

able

writer

on

parliamentary law, "whether these forms
be in all cases the most rational or not, is
really not of so great importance; for it is
much more material that there should be a
rule to go by, than what that rule is. "[50] By
common consent, the rules established for
the government of Parliament in England,
and of Congress in the United States, and
which are known collectively under the
name of "Parliamentary Law," have been
adopted for the regulation of all
deliberative bodies, whether of a public or
private nature. But lodges of Freemasons
differ so much in their organization and
character from other societies, that this law

will, in very few cases, be found
applicable; and, indeed, in many
positively inapplicable to them. The rules,
therefore, for the government of masonic
lodges are in general to be deduced from
the usages of the Order, from traditional or
written authority, and where both of them
are silent, from analogy to the character of
the institution. To each of these sources,
therefore, I shall apply, in the course of the
present chapter, and in some few
instances, where the parliamentary law
coincides with our own, reference will be
made to the authority of the best writers on
that science.

Section I.

Of the Order of Business.

When the Brethren have been
"congregated," or called together by the
presiding officer, the first thing to be
attended to is the ceremony of opening the
lodge. The consideration of this subject, as
it is sufficiently detailed in our ritual, will
form no part of the present work.

The lodge having been opened, the next
thing to be attended to is the reading of
the minutes of the last communication. The
minutes having been read, the presiding
officer will put the question on their
confirmation, having first inquired of the
Senior and Junior Wardens, and lastly of
the Brethren "around the lodge," whether
they have any alterations to propose. It

must be borne in mind, that the question of
confirmation is simply a question whether
the Secretary has faithfully and correctly
recorded the transactions of the lodge. If,
therefore, it can be satisfactorily shown by
any one that there is a mis-entry, or the
omission of an entry, this is the time to
correct it; and where the matter is of
sufficient importance, and the recording
officer, or any member disputes the
charge of error, the vote of the lodge will
be taken on the subject, and the journal
will be amended or remain as written,
according to the opinion so expressed by
the majority of the members. As this is,
however, a mere question of memory, it
must be apparent that those members only
who were present at the previous
communication, the records of which are
under examination, are qualified to
express a fair opinion. All others should
ask and be permitted to be excused from

voting.

As no special communication can alter or
amend the proceedings of a regular one, it
is not deemed necessary to present the
records of the latter to the inspection of the
former. This preliminary reading of the
minutes is, therefore, always omitted at
special communications.

After the reading of the minutes,
unfinished business, such as motions
previously submitted and reports of
committees previously appointed, will
take the preference of all other matters.
Special communications being called for
the consideration of some special subject,
that subject must of course claim the
priority of consideration over all others.

In like manner, where any business has
been specially and specifically postponed

to another communication, it constitutes at
that communication what is called, in
parliamentary law, "the order of the day,"
and may at any time in the course of the
evening be called up, to the exclusion of
all other business.

The lodge may, however, at its discretion,
refuse to take up the consideration of such
order; for the same body which
determined at one time to consider a
question, may at another time refuse to do
so. This is one of those instances in which
parliamentary usage is applicable to the
government of a lodge. Jefferson says:
"Where an order is made, that any
particular matter be taken up on any
particular day, there a question is to be
put, when it is called for, Whether the
house will now proceed to that matter?" In
a lodge, however, it is not the usage to
propose such a question, but the matter

being called up, is discussed and acted on,
unless some Brother moves its
postponement, when the question of
postponement is put.

But with these exceptions, the unfinished
business must first be disposed of, to avoid
its accumulation and its possible
subsequent neglect. [51]

New business will then be taken up in such
order as the local bye-laws prescribe, or
the wisdom of the Worshipful Master may
suggest.

In a discussion, when any member wishes
to speak, he must stand up in his place,
and address himself not to the lodge, nor
to any particular Brother, but to the
presiding officer, styling him "Worshipful."

When two or more members rise nearly

together, the presiding officer determines
who is entitled to speak, and calls him by
his name, whereupon he proceeds, unless
he voluntarily sits down, and gives way to
the other. The ordinary rules of courtesy,
which should govern a masonic body
above all other societies, as well as the
general usage of deliberative bodies,
require that the one first up should be
entitled to the floor. But the decision of this
fact is left entirely to the Master, or
presiding officer.

Whether a member be entitled to speak
once or twice to the same question, is left
to the regulation of the local bye-laws of
every lodge. But, under all circumstances,
it seems to be conceded, that a member
may rise at any time with the permission of
the presiding officer, or for the purpose of
explanation.

A member may be called to order by any
other while speaking, for the use of any
indecorous remark, personal allusion, or
irrelevant matter; but this must be done in
a courteous and conciliatory manner, and
the question of order will at once be
decided by the presiding officer.

No Brother is to be interrupted while
speaking, except for the purpose of calling
him to order, or to make a necessary
explanation; nor are any separate
conversations, or, as they are called in our
ancient charges, "private committees," to
be allowed.

Every member of the Order is, in the
course of the debate as well as at all other
times in the lodge, to be addressed by the
title of "Brother," and no secular or worldly
titles are ever to be used.

In accordance with the principles of
justice, the parliamentary usage is
adopted, which permits the mover of a
resolution to make the concluding speech,
that he may reply to all those who have

spoken against it, and sum up the
arguments in its favor. And it would be a
breach of order as well as of courtesy for
any of his opponents to respond to this

final argument of the mover.

It is within the discretion of the Master, at
any time in the course of the evening, to
suspend the business of the lodge for the
purpose of proceeding to the ceremony of
initiation, for the "work" of Masonry, as it is
technically called, takes precedence of all
other business.

When all business, both old and new, and
the initiation of candidates, if there be any,
has been disposed of, the presiding officer

inquires of the officers and members if
there be anything more to be proposed
before closing. Custom has prescribed a
formulary for making this inquiry, which is
in the following words.

The Worshipful Master, addressing the
Senior and Junior Wardens and then the
Brethren, successively, says: "Brother
Senior, have you anything to offer in the
West for the good of Masonry in general or
of this lodge in particular? Anything in the
South, Brother Junior? Around the lodge,
Brethren?" The answers to these inquiries
being in the negative on the part of the
Wardens, and silence on that of the craft,
the Master proceeds to close the lodge in
the manner prescribed in the ritual.

The reading of the minutes of the evening,
not for confirmation, but for suggestion,
lest anything may have been omitted,

should always precede the closing
ceremonies, unless, from the lateness of
the hour, it be dispensed with by the
members.

Section II.

_Of Appeals from the Decision of the
Chair.

Freemasonry differs from all other
institutions, in permitting no appeal to the
lodge from the decision of the presiding
officer. The Master is supreme in his
lodge, so far as the lodge is concerned. He
is amenable for his conduct, in the
government of the lodge, not to its
members, but to the Grand Lodge alone.
In deciding points of order as well as
graver matters, no appeal can be taken
from that decision to the lodge. If an
appeal were proposed, it would be his
duty, for the preservation of discipline, to
refuse to put the question. It is, in fact,
wrong that the Master should even by
courtesy permit such an appeal to be

taken; because, as the Committee of
Correspondence of the Grand Lodge of
Tennessee have wisely remarked, by the
admission of such appeals by _courtesy_,
"is established ultimately a precedent from
which will be claimed _the right to take_
appeals." [52] If a member is aggrieved
with the conduct or the decisions of the
Master, he has his redress by an appeal to
the Grand Lodge, which will of course see
that the Master does not rule his lodge "in
an unjust or arbitrary manner." But such a
thing as an appeal from the Master to the
lodge is unknown in Masonry.

This, at first view, may appear to be giving
too despotic a power to the Master. But a
little reflection will convince any one that
there can be but slight danger of
oppression from one so guarded and
controlled as the Master is by the
obligations of his office and the

superintendence of the Grand Lodge,
while the placing in the hands of the craft
so powerful, and, with bad spirits, so
annoying a privilege as that of immediate
appeal, would necessarily tend to impair
the energies and lessen the dignity of the
Master, at the same time that it would be
totally subversive of that spirit of strict
discipline which pervades every part of
the institution, and to which it is mainly
indebted for its prosperity and perpetuity.

In every case where a member supposes
himself to be aggrieved by the decision of
the Master, he should make his appeal to
the Grand Lodge.

It is scarcely necessary to add, that a
Warden or Past Master, presiding in the
absence of the Master, assumes for the
time all the rights and prerogatives of the
Master.

Section III.

_Of the Mode of Taking the Question._

The question in Masonry is not taken _viva
voce_ or by "aye" and "nay." This should
always be done by "a show of hands." The
regulation on this subject was adopted not
later than the year 1754, at which time the
Book of Constitutions was revised, "and the
necessary alterations and additions made,
consistent with the laws and rules of
Masonry," and accordingly, in the edition
published in the following year, the
regulation is laid down in these
words— "The opinions or votes of the
members are always to be signified by
each holding up one of his hands: which
uplifted hands the Grand Wardens are to
count; unless the number of hands be so
unequal as to render the counting useless.

Nor should any other kind of division be
ever admitted among Masons. "[53]

Calling for the yeas and nays has been
almost universally condemned as an
unmasonic practice, nor should any Master
allow it to be resorted to in his lodge.

Moving the "previous question," a
parliamentary invention for stopping all
discussion, is still more at variance with
the liberal and harmonious spirit which
should distinguish masonic debates, and
is, therefore, never to be permitted in a
lodge.

Section IV.

Of Adjournments.

Adjournment is a term not recognized in
Masonry. There are but two ways in which
the communication of a lodge can be
terminated; and these are either by
_closing_ the lodge, or by _calling from
labor to refreshments In the former case
the business of the communication is
finally disposed of until the next
communication; in the latter the lodge is
still supposed to be open and may resume
its labors at any time indicated by the
Master.

But both the time of closing the lodge and
of calling it from labor to refreshment is to
be determined by the absolute will and the
free judgment of the Worshipful Master, to

whom alone is intrusted the care of "setting
the craft to work, and giving them
wholesome instruction for labor." He alone
is responsible to the Grand Master and the
Grand Lodge, that his lodge shall be
opened, continued, and closed in
harmony; and as it is by his "will and
pleasure" only that it is opened, so is it by
his "will and pleasure" only that it can be
closed. Any attempt, therefore, on the part
of the lodge to entertain a motion for
adjournment would be an infringement of
this prerogative of the Master. Such a
motion is, therefore, always out of order,
and cannot be; and cannot be acted on.

The rule that a lodge cannot adjourn, but
remain in session until closed by the
Master, derives an authoritative sanction

also from the following clause in the fifth of
the Old Charges.

"All Masons employed shall meekly
receive their wages without murmuring or
mutiny, _and not desert the Master till the
work is finished_."

Section V.

Of the Appointment of Committees.

It is the prerogative of the Master to
appoint all Committees, unless by a
special resolution provision has been
made that a committee shall otherwise be
appointed.

The Master is also, _ex officio_, chairman
of every committee which he chooses to
attend, although he may not originally
have been named a member of such
committee. But he may, if he chooses,
waive this privilege; yet he may, at any
time during the session of the committee,
reassume his inherent prerogative of
governing the craft at all times when in his
presence, and therefore take the chair.

Section VI.

_Of the Mode of Keeping the Minutes. _

Masonry is preeminently an institution of
forms, and hence, as was to be expected,
there is a particular form provided for
recording the proceedings of a lodge.
Perhaps the best method of
communicating this form to the reader will
be, to record the proceedings of a
supposititious meeting or communication.

The following form, therefore, embraces
the most important transactions that
usually occur during the session of a
lodge, and it may serve as an exemplar,
for the use of secretaries.

"A regular communication of — Lodge,
NO. — , was holden at — ; on — , the —

day of — A.: L.: 58—.

Present.

Bro.: A. B — , W.: Master. " B. C — ,

S.: Warden. ” C. D — ,J.: Warden. ”
D. E — , Treasurer. " E. F — ,
Secretary. " F. G — , S.: Deacon. "

G. H — , J.: Deacon. " H. I — , }
Stewards. ” I. K — , } " K. L — ,
Tiler.

_Members._ Bro.: L. M — M.

N — N. O — O. P— -

_Visitors._ P. 0 — Q. R —

R. S — S. T —

The Lodge was opened in due form on the
third degree of Masonry.

"The minutes of the regular communication

of — were read and confirmed. [54]

"The committee on the petition of Mr. C. B.,
a candidate for initiation, reported
favorably, whereupon he was balloted for
and duly elected.

"The committee on the application of Mr.

D. C., a candidate for initiation, reported
favorably, whereupon he was balloted for,
and the box appearing foul he was
rejected.

"The committee on the application of Mr.

E. D., a candidate for initiation, having
reported unfavorably, he was declared
rejected without a ballot.

"The petition of Mr. F. E., a candidate for
initiation, having been withdrawn by his
friends, he was declared rejected without
a ballot.

"A petition for initiation from Mr. G.F.,

inclosing

the

usual

amount

and

recommended by Bros. C. D. — and H.
I. — , was referred to a committee of
investigation consisting of Bros. G. H. — ,
L. M. — , and O. P. — .

"Bro. S.R., an Entered Apprentice, having
applied for advancement, was duly
elected to take the second degree; and
Bro. W.Y., a Fellow Craft, was, on his
application for advancement, duly elected
to take the third degree.

"A letter was read from Mrs. T. V. — , the
widow of a Master Mason, when the sum of
twenty dollars was voted for her relief.

"The amendment to article 10, section 5 of
the bye-laws, proposed by Bro. M. N. —
at the communication of — , was read a

third time, adopted by a constitutional
majority and ordered to be sent to the
Grand Lodge for approval and
confirmation.

"The Lodge of Master Masons was then
closed, and a lodge of Entered
Apprentices opened in due form.

"Mr. C. B., a candidate for initiation, being
in waiting, was duly prepared, brought
forward and initiated as an Entered
Apprentice, he paying the usual fee.

"The Lodge of Entered Apprentices was
then closed, and a Lodge of Fellow Crafts
opened in due form.

"Bro. S. R., an Entered Apprentice, being
in waiting, was duly prepared, brought
forward and passed to the degree of a
Fellow Craft, he paying the usual fee.

"The Lodge of Fellow Crafts was then
closed, and a lodge of Master Masons
opened in due form.

"Bro. W. Y., a Fellow Craft, being in
waiting, was duly prepared, brought
forward and raised to the sublime degree
of a Master Mason, he paying the usual fee.

Amount received this evening, as follows:

Petition of Mr. G. F., $5 Fee of Bro.
C. B., 5 do. of Bro. S. R., 5 do. of
Bro.W.Y., 5-Total, $20

all of which was paid over to the Treasurer.

There being no further business, the lodge
was closed in due form and harmony.

E. F — ,

Secretary.

Such is the form which has been adopted
as the most convenient mode of recording
the transactions of a lodge. These minutes
must be read, at the close of the meeting,
that the Brethren may suggest any
necessary alterations or additions, and
then at the beginning of the next regular
meeting, that they may be confirmed, after
which they should be transcribed from the
rough Minute Book in which they were first

Book Third.

The Law Of

Individuals.

Passing from the consideration of the law,
which refers to Masons in their
congregated masses, as the constituents of
Grand and Subordinate Lodges, I next
approach the discussion of the law which
governs, them in their individual capacity,
whether in the inception of their masonic
life, as candidates for initiation, or in their
gradual progress through each of the three
degrees, for it will be found that a Mason,
as he assumes new and additional
obligations, and is presented with
increased light, contracts new duties, and
is invested with new prerogatives and
privileges.

Chapter I.

Of the Qualifications of Candidates.

The qualifications of a candidate for
initiation into the mysteries of
Freemasonry, are four-fold in their
character— moral, physical, intellectual and
political.

The moral character is intended to secure
the respectability of the Order, because,
by the worthiness of its candidates, their
virtuous deportment, and good reputation,
will the character of the institution be
judged, while the admission of irreligious
libertines and contemners of the moral law
would necessarily impair its dignity and
honor.

The physical qualifications of a candidate
contribute to the utility of the Order,
because he who is deficient in any of his
limbs or members, and who is not in the
possession of all his natural senses and
endowments, is unable to perform, with

pleasure to himself or credit to the
fraternity, those peculiar labors in which
all should take an equal part. He thus
becomes a drone in the hive, and so far
impairs the usefulness of the lodge, as "a
place where Freemasons assemble to
work, and to instruct and improve
themselves in the mysteries of their
ancient science."

The intellectual qualifications refer to the
security of the Order; because they
require that its mysteries shall be confided
only to those whose mental developments
are such as to enable them properly to
appreciate, and faithfully to preserve from
imposition, the secrets thus entrusted to
them. It is evident, for instance, that an
idiot could neither understand the hidden
doctrines that might be communicated to
him, nor could he so secure such portions
as he might remember, in the "depositary

of his heart," as to prevent the designing
knave from worming them out of him; for,
as the wise Solomon has said, "a fool's
mouth is his destruction, and his lips are
the snare of his soul."

The political qualifications are intended to
maintain the independence of the Order;
because its obligations and privileges are
thus confided only to those who, from their
position in society, are capable of obeying
the one, and of exercising the other
without the danger of let or hindrance from
superior authority.

Of the moral, physical and political
qualifications of a candidate there can be
no doubt, as they are distinctly laid down
in the ancient charges and constitutions.
The intellectual are not so readily decided.

These four-fold qualifications may be

briefly summed up in the following
axioms.

_Morally_, the candidate must be a man of
irreproachable conduct, a believer in the
existence of God, and living "under the
tongue of good report."

_Physically_, he must be a man of at least
twenty-one years of age, upright in body,
with the senses of a man, not deformed or
dismembered, but with hale and entire
limbs as a _man_ ought to be.

_Intellectually_, he must be a man in the
full possession of his intellects, not so
young that his mind shall not have been
formed, nor so old that it shall have fallen
into dotage; neither a fool, an idiot, nor a
madman; and with so much education as to
enable him to avail himself of the
teachings of Masonry, and to cultivate at

his leisure a knowledge of the principles
and doctrines of our royal art.

_Politically_, he must be in the
unrestrained enjoyment of his civil and
personal liberty, and this, too, by the
birthright of inheritance, and not by its
subsequent acquisition, in consequence of
his release from hereditary bondage.

The lodge which strictly demands these
qualifications of its candidates may have
fewer members than one less strict, but it
will undoubtedly have better ones.

But the importance of the subject demands
for each class of the qualifications a
separate section, and a more extended
consideration.

Section I.

_Of the Moral Qualifications of
Candidates.

The old charges state, that "a Mason is
obliged by his tenure to obey the moral
law." It is scarcely necessary to say, that
the phrase, "moral law," is a technical
expression of theology, and refers to the
Ten Commandments, which are so called,
because they define the regulations
necessary for the government of the
morals and manners of men. The habitual
violation of any one of these commands
would seem, according to the spirit of the
Ancient Constitutions, to disqualify a
candidate for Masonry.

The same charges go on to say, in relation
to the religious character of a Mason, that

he should not be "a stupid atheist, nor an
irreligious libertine." A denier of the
existence of a Supreme Architect of the
Universe cannot, of course, be obligated
as a Mason, and, accordingly, there is no
landmark more certain than that which
excludes every atheist from the Order.

The word "libertine" has, at this day, a
meaning very different from what it bore
when the old charges were compiled. It
then signified what we now call a
"free-thinker," or disbeliever in the divine
revelation of the Scriptures. This rule
would therefore greatly abridge the
universality

and

tolerance

of

the

Institution, were it not for the following
qualifying clause in the same instrument: ~

"Though in ancient times Masons were
charged in every country to be of the
religion of that country or nation, whatever

it was, yet it is now thought more
expedient only to oblige them to that
religion in which all men agree, leaving
their particular opinions to themselves;
that is, to be good men and true, or men of
honor and honesty, by whatever
denominations or persuasions they may be
distinguished."

The construction now given universally to
the religious qualification of a candidate, is
simply that he shall have a belief in the
existence and superintending control of a
Supreme Being.

These old charges from which we derive
the whole of our doctrine as to the moral
qualifications of a candidate, further
prescribe as to the political relations of a
Mason, that he is to be "a peaceable
subject to the civil powers, wherever he
resides or works, and is never to be

concerned in plots and conspiracies
against the peace and welfare of the
nation, nor to behave himself undutifully to
inferior magistrates. He is cheerfully to
conform to every lawful authority; to
uphold on every occasion the interest of
the community, and zealously promote the
prosperity of his own country."

Such being the characteristics of a true
Mason, the candidate who desires to
obtain that title, must show his claim to the
possession of these virtues; and hence the
same charges declare, in reference to
these moral qualifications, that "The
persons made Masons, or admitted
members of a lodge, must be good and
true men— no immoral or scandalous men,
but of good report."

Section II.

_Of the Physical Qualifications of
Candidates.

The physical qualifications of a candidate
refer to his sex, his age, and the condition
of his limbs.

The first and most important requisite of a
candidate is, that he shall be "_a man_." No
woman can be made a Mason. This
landmark is so indisputable, that it would
be wholly superfluous to adduce any
arguments or authority in its support.

As to age, the old charges prescribe the
rule, that the candidate must be "of mature
and discreet age." But what is the precise
period when one is supposed to have
arrived at this maturity and discretion,

cannot be inferred from any uniform
practice of the craft in different countries.
The provisions of the civil law, which make
twenty-one the age of maturity, have,
however, been generally followed. In this
country the regulation is general, that the
candidate must be twenty-one years of
age. Such, too, was the regulation adopted
by the General Assembly, which met on
the 27th Dec., 1663, and which prescribed
that "no person shall be accepted unless
he be twenty-one years old or more. "[55]
In Prussia, the candidate is required to be
twenty-five; in England, twenty-one, [56]
"unless by dispensation from the Grand
Master, or Provincial Grand Master;" in
Ireland, twenty-one, except "by
dispensation from the Grand Master, or the
Grand Lodge;" in France, twenty-one,
unless the candidate be the son of a Mason
who has rendered important service to the
craft, with the consent of his parent or

guardian, or a young man who has served
six months with his corps in the army-such
persons may be initiated at eighteen; in
Switzerland, the age of qualification is
fixed at twenty-one, and in
Frankfort-on-Mayn, at twenty. In this
country, as I have already observed, the
regulation of 1663 is rigidly enforced, and
no candidate, who has not arrived at the
age of twenty-one, can be initiated.

Our ritual excludes "an old man in his
dotage" equally with a "young man under
age." But as dotage signifies imbecility of
mind, this subject will be more properly
considered under the head of intellectual
qualifications.

The physical qualifications, which refer to
the condition of the candidate's body and
limbs, have given rise, within a few years
past, to a great amount of discussion and

much variety of opinion. The regulation
contained in the old charges of 1721,
which requires the candidate to be "a
perfect youth," has in some jurisdictions
been rigidly enforced to the very letter of
the law, while in others it has been so
completely explained away as to mean
anything or nothing. Thus, in South
Carolina, where the rule is rigid, the
candidate is required to be neither
deformed nor dismembered, but of hale
and entire limbs, as a man ought to be,
while in Maine, a deformed person may be
admitted, provided "the deformity is not
such as to prevent him from being
instructed in the arts and mysteries of
Freemasonry."

The first written law which we find on this
subject is that which was enacted by the
General Assembly held in 1663, under the
Grand Mastership of the Earl of St. Albans,

and which declares "that no person shall
hereafter be accepted a Freemason but
such as are of _able_ body. "[57]

Twenty years after, in the reign of James
II., or about the year 1683, it seems to have
been found necessary, more exactly to
define the meaning of this expression, "of
able body," and accordingly we find,
among the charges ordered to be read to a
Master on his installation, the following
regulation:

"Thirdly, that he that be made be able in
all degrees; that is, free-born, of a good
kindred, true, and no bondsman, and that
_he have his right limbs as a man ought to
have."_[58]

The old charges, published in the original
Book of Constitutions in 1723, contain the
following regulation:

"No Master should take an Apprentice,
unless he be a perfect youth having no
maim or defect that may render him
uncapable of learning the art."

Notwithstanding the positive demand for
_perfection_, and the positive and explicit
declaration that he must have _no maim or
defect^, the remainder of the sentence has,
within a few years past, by some Grand
Lodges, been considered as a qualifying
clause, which would permit the admission
of candidates whose physical defects did
not exceed a particular point. But, in
perfection, there can be no degrees of
comparison, and he who is required to be
perfect, is required to be so without
modification or diminution. That which is
_perfect_ is complete in all its parts, and,
by a deficiency in any portion of its
constituent materials, it becomes not less

perfect, (which expression would be a
solecism in grammar,) but at once by the
deficiency ceases to be perfect at all— it
then becomes imperfect. In the
interpretation of a law, "words," says
Blackstone, "are generally to be
understood in their usual and most known
signification," and then "perfect" would
mean, "complete, entire, neither defective
nor redundant." But another source of
interpretation is, the "comparison of a law
with other laws, that are made by the same
legislator, that have some affinity with the
subject, or that expressly relate to the
same point." [59] Applying this law of the
jurists, we shall have no difficulty in
arriving at the true signification of the
word "perfect," if we refer to the regulation
of 1683, of which the clause in question
appears to have been an exposition. Now,
the regulation of 1683 says, in explicit
terms, that the candidate must "_have his

right limbs as a man ought to have_."
Comparing the one law with the other,
there can be no doubt that the requisition
of Masonry is and always has been, that
admission could only be granted to him
who was neither deformed nor
dismembered, but of hale and entire limbs
as a man should be.

But another, and, as Blackstone terms it,
"the most universal and effectual way of
discovering the true meaning of a law" is,
to consider "the reason and spirit of it, or
the cause which moved the legislator to
enact it." Now, we must look for the origin
of the law requiring physical perfection,
not to the formerly operative character of
the institution, (for there never was a time
when it was not speculative as well as
operative,) but to its symbolic nature. In
the ancient temple, every stone was
required to be _perfect_, for a perfect

stone was the symbol of truth. In our
mystic association, every Mason
represents a stone in that spiritual temple,
"that house not made with hands, eternal in
the heavens," of which the temple of
Solomon was the type. Hence it is required
that he should present himself, like the
perfect stone in the material temple, a
perfect man in the spiritual building. "The
symbolic relation of each member of the
Order to its mystic temple, forbids the
idea," says Bro. W.S. Rockwell, of
Georgia, [60] "that its constituent portions,
its living stones, should be less perfect or
less a type of their great original, than the
immaculate material which formed the
earthly dwelling place of the God of their
adoration." If, then, as I presume it will be
readily conceded, by all except those who
erroneously suppose the institution to have
been once wholly operative and
afterwards wholly speculative, perfection

is required in a candidate, not for the
physical reason that he may be enabled to
give the necessary signs of recognition,
but because the defect would destroy the
symbolism of that perfect stone which
every Mason is supposed to represent in
the spiritual temple, we thus arrive at a
knowledge of the causes which moved the
legislators of Masonry to enact the law,
and we see at once, and without doubt,
that the words _perfect youth_ are to be
taken in an unqualified sense, as signifying
one who has "his right limbs as a man
ought to have. "[ 61 ]

It is, however, but fair to state that the
remaining clause of the old charge, which
asserts that the candidate must have no
maim or defect that may render him
incapable of learning the art, has been
supposed to intend a modification of the
word "perfect," and to permit the

admission of one whose maim or defect
was not of such a nature as to prevent his
learning the art of Masonry. But I would
respectfully suggest that a criticism of this
kind is based upon a mistaken view of the
import of the words. The sentence is not
that the candidate must have no such maim
or defect as might, by possibility, prevent
him from learning the art; though this is the
interpretation given by those who are in
favor of admitting slightly maimed
candidates. It is, on the contrary, so
worded as to give a consequential
meaning to the word "_that_." He must
have no maim or defect _that_ may render
him incapable; that is, _because_, by
having such maim or defect, he would be
rendered incapable of acquiring our art.

In the Ahiman Rezon published by
Laurence Dermott in 1764, and adopted for
the government of the Grand Lodge of

Ancient York Masons in England, and
many of the Provincial Grand and
subordinate lodges of America, the
regulation is laid down that candidates
must be "men of good report, free-born, of
mature age, not deformed nor
dismembered at the time of their making,
and no woman or eunuch." It is true that at
the present day this book possesses no
legal authority among the craft; but I quote
it, to show what was the interpretation
given to the ancient law by a large portion,
perhaps a majority, of the English and
American Masons in the middle of the
eighteenth century.

A similar interpretation seems at all times
to have been given by the Grand Lodges
of the United States, with the exception of
some, who, within a few years past, have
begun to adopt a more latitudinarian
construction.

In Pennsylvania it was declared, in 1783,
that candidates are not to be "deformed or
dismembered at the time of their making."

In South Carolina the book of
Constitutions, first published in 1807,
requires that "every person desiring
admission must be upright in body, not
deformed or dismembered at the time of
making, but of hale and entire limbs, as a
man ought to be."

In the "Ahiman Rezon and Masonic Ritual,"
published by order of the Grand Lodge of
North Carolina and Tennessee, in the year
1805, candidates are required to be "hale
and sound, not deformed or dismembered
at the time of their making. "[62]

Maryland, in 1826, sanctioned the Ahiman
Rezon of Cole, which declares the law in

precisely the words of South Carolina,
already quoted.

In 1823, the Grand Lodge of Missouri
unanimously adopted a report, which
declared that all were to be refused
admission who were not "sound in mind
and _all their members_," and she adopted
a resolution asserting that "the Grand
Lodge cannot grant a letter or dispensation
to a subordinate lodge working under its
jurisdiction, to initiate any person maimed,
disabled, or wanting the qualifications
establishing by ancient usage. "[63]

But it is unnecessary to multiply instances.
There never seems to have been any
deviation from the principle that required
absolute physical perfection, until, within a
few years, the spirit of expediency[64] has
induced some Grand Lodges to propose a
modified construction of the law, and to

admit those whose maims or deformities
were not such as to prevent them from
complying with the ceremonial of
initiation. Still, a large number of the
Grand Lodges have stood fast by the
ancient landmark, and it is yet to be hoped
that all will return to their first allegiance.
The subject is an important one, and,
therefore, a few of the more recent
authorities, in behalf of the old law may
with advantage be cited.

"We

have examined carefully the

arguments 'pro and con,’ that have
accompanied the proceedings of the
several Grand Lodges, submitted to us,
and the conviction has been forced upon
our minds, even against our wills, that we
depart from the ancient landmarks and
usages of Masonry, whenever we admit an
individual wanting in one of the human
senses, or who is in any particular maimed

or deformed. "—-Committee of

Correspondence G. Lodge of Georgia_,
1848, _page_ 36.

"The rationale of the law, excluding
persons physically imperfect and
deformed, lies deeper and is more ancient
than the source ascribed to it. [65] It is
grounded on a principle recognized in the
earliest ages of the world; and will be
found identical with that which obtained
among the ancient Jews. In this respect the
Levitical law was the same as the masonic,
which would not allow any 'to go in unto
the vail’ who had a blemish— a blind man,
or a lame, or a man that was
broken-footed, or broken-handed, or a
dwarf, &c....

"The learned and studious Freemasonic
antiquary can satisfactorily explain the
metaphysics of this requisition in our Book

of Constitutions. For the true and faithful
Brother it sufficeth to know that such a
requisition exists. He will prize it the more
because of its antiquity.... No man can in
perfection be 'made a Brother,' no man can
truly 'learn our mysteries,’ and practice
them, or 'do the work of a Freemason,' if he
is not a _man_ with body free from maim,
defect and deformity."— _Report of a
Special Committee of the Grand Lodge of
New York, in_ 1848. [66]

"The records of this Grand Lodge may be
confidently appealed to, for proofs of her
repeated refusal to permit maimed
persons to be initiated, and not simply on
the ground that ancient usage forbids it,
but because the fundamental constitution
of the Order— the ancient charges— forbid
it."— _Committee of Correspondence of
New York, for 1848, p. 70._

"The lodges subordinate to this Grand
Lodge are hereby required, in the
initiation of applicants for Masonry, to
adhere to the ancient law (as laid down in
our printed books), which says he shall be
of _entire limbs_"— _Resolution of the G.L.
of Maryland, November, 1848. _

"I received from the lodge at Ashley a
petition to initiate into our Order a
gentleman of high respectability, who,
unfortunately, has been maimed. I refused
my assent.... I have also refused a similar
request from the lodge of which I am a
member. The fact that the most
distinguished masonic body on earth has
recently removed one of the landmarks,
should teach _us_ to be careful how we
touch those ancient

boundaries."— _Address of the Grand
Master of New Jersey in 1849._

"The Grand Lodge of Florida adopted such
a provision in her constitution, [the
qualifying clause permitting the initiation
of a maimed person, if his deformity was
not such as to prevent his instruction], but
more mature reflection, and more light
reflected from our sister Grand Lodges,
caused it to be stricken from our
constitution."— _Address of Gov. Tho.
Brown, Grand Master of Florida in_ 1849.

"As to the physical qualifications, the
Ahiman Rezon leaves no doubt on the
subject, but expressly declares, that every
applicant for initiation must be a man,
free-born, of lawful age, in the perfect
enjoyment of his senses, hale, and sound,
and not deformed or dismembered; this is
one of the ancient landmarks of the Order,
which it is in the power of no body of men
to change. A man having but one arm, or
one leg, or who is in anyway deprived of

his due proportion of limbs and members,
is as incapable of initiation as a
woman."— _Encyclical Letter of the Grand
Lodge of South Carolina to its subordinates
in_ 1849.

Impressed, then, by the weight of these
authorities, which it would be easy, but is
unnecessary, to multiply— guided by a
reference to the symbolic and speculative
(not operative) reason of the law— and
governed by the express words of the
regulation of 1683—1 am constrained to
believe that the spirit as well as the letter
of our ancient landmarks require that a
candidate for admission should be perfect
in all his parts, that is, neither redundant
nor deficient, neither deformed nor
dismembered, but of hale and entire
limbs, as a man ought to be.

Section III.

_Of the Intellectual Qualifications of
Candidates.

The Old Charges and Ancient
Constitutions are not as explicit in relation
to the intellectual as to the moral and
physical qualifications of candidates, and,
therefore, in coming to a decision on this
subject, we are compelled to draw our
conclusions from analogy, from common
sense, and from the peculiar character of
the institution. The question that here
suggests itself on this subject is, what
particular amount of human learning is
required as a constitutional qualification
for initiation?

During a careful examination of every
ancient document to which I have had

access, I have met with no positive
enactment forbidding the admission of
uneducated persons, even of those who
can neither read nor write. The unwritten,
as well as the written laws of the Order,
require that the candidate shall be neither
a _fool_ nor an _idiot_, but that he shall
possess a discreet judgment, and be in the
enjoyment of all the senses of a man. But
one who is unable to subscribe his name,
or to read it when written, might still very
easily prove himself to be within the
requirements of this regulation. The
Constitutions of England, formed since the
union of the two Grand Lodges in 1813, are
certainly explicit enough on this subject.
They require even more than a bare
knowledge of reading and writing, for, in
describing the qualifications of a
candidate, they say:

"He should be a lover of the liberal arts

and sciences, and have made some
progress in one or other of them; and he
must, previous to his initiation, subscribe
his name at full length, to a declaration of
the following import," etc. And in a note to
this regulation, it is said, "Any individual
who cannot write is, consequently,
ineligible to be admitted into the Order." If
this authority were universal in its
character, there would be no necessity for
a further discussion of the subject. But the
modern constitutions of the Grand Lodge
of England are only of force within its own
jurisdiction, and we are therefore again
compelled to resort to a mode of
reasoning for the proper deduction of our
conclusions on this subject.

It is undoubtedly true that in the early
period of the world, when Freemasonry
took its origin, the arts of reading and
writing were not so generally

disseminated among all classes of the
community as they now are, when the
blessings of a common education can be
readily and cheaply obtained. And it may,
therefore, be supposed that among our
ancient Brethren there were many who
could neither read nor write. But after all,
this is a mere assumption, which, although
it may be based on probability, has no
direct evidence for its support. And, on the
other hand, we see throughout all our
ancient regulations, that a marked
distinction was made by our rulers
between the Freemason and the Mason
who was not free; as, for instance, in the
conclusion of the fifth chapter of the
Ancient Charges, where it is said: "No
laborer shall be employed in the common
work of Masonry, nor shall Freemasons
work with those who are not free, without
an urgent necessity." And this would seem
to indicate a higher estimation by the

fraternity of their own character, which
might be derived from their greater
attainments in knowledge. That in those
days the ordinary operative masons could
neither read nor write, is a fact established
by history. But it does not follow that the
Freemasons, who were a separate society
of craftsmen, were in the same unhappy
category; it is even probable, that the fact
that they were not so, but that they were, in
comparison with the unaccepted masons,
educated men, may have been the reason
of the distinction made between these two
classes of workmen.

But further, all the teachings of
Freemasonry are delivered on the
assumption that the recipients are men of
some education, with the means of
improving their minds and increasing their
knowledge. Even the Entered Apprentice
is reminded, by the rough and perfect

ashlars, of the importance and necessity of
a virtuous education, in fitting him for the
discharge of his duties. To the Fellow
Craft, the study of the liberal arts and
sciences is earnestly recommended; and
indeed, that sacred hieroglyphic, the
knowledge of whose occult signification
constitutes the most solemn part of his
instruction, presupposes an acquaintance
at least with the art of reading. And the
Master Mason is expressly told in the
explanation of the forty-seventh problem
of Euclid, as one of the symbols of the third
degree, that it was introduced into
Masonry to teach the Brethren the value of
the arts and sciences, and that the Mason,
like the discoverer of the problem, our
ancient Brother Pythagoras, should be a
diligent cultivator of learning. Our
lectures, too, abound in allusions which
none but a person of some cultivation of
mind could understand or appreciate, and

to address them, or any portion of our
charges which refer to the improvement of
the intellect and the augmentation of
knowledge, to persons who can neither
read nor write, would be, it seems to us, a
mockery unworthy of the sacred character
of our institution.

From these facts and this method of
reasoning, I deduce the conclusion that the
framers of Masonry, in its present
organization as a speculative institution,
must have intended to admit none into its
fraternity whose minds had not received
some preliminary cultivation, and I am,
therefore, clearly of opinion, that a person
who cannot read and write is not legally
qualified for admission.

As to the inexpediency of receiving such
candidates, there can be no question or
doubt. If Masonry be, as its disciples claim

for it, a scientific institution, whose great
object is to improve the understanding
and to enlarge and adorn the mind, whose
character cannot be appreciated, and
whose lessons of symbolic wisdom cannot
be acquired, without much studious
application, how preposterous would it be
to place, among its disciples, one who had
lived to adult years, without having known
the necessity or felt the ambition for a
knowledge of the alphabet of his mother
tongue? Such a man could make no
advancement in the art of Masonry; and
while he would confer no substantial
advantage on the institution, he would, by
his manifest incapacity and ignorance,
detract, in the eyes of strangers, from its
honor and dignity as an intellectual
society.

Idiots and madmen are excluded from
admission into the Order, for the evident

reason that the former from an absence,
and the latter from a perversion of the
intellectual faculties, are incapable of
comprehending the objects, or of
assuming the responsibilities and
obligations of the institution.

A question here suggests itself whether a
person of present sound mind, but who
had formerly been deranged, can legally
be initiated. The answer to this question
turns on the fact of his having perfectly
recovered. If the present sanity of the
applicant is merely a lucid interval, which
physicians know to be sometimes vouched
to lunatics, with the absolute certainty, or
at best, the strong probability, of an
eventual return to a state of mental
derangement, he is not, of course,
qualified for initiation. But if there has been
a real and durable recovery (of which a
physician will be a competent judge), then

there can be no possible objection to his
admission, if otherwise eligible. We are
not to look to what the candidate once was,
but to what he now is.

Dotage, or the mental imbecility produced
by excessive old age, is also a
disqualification for admission.

Distinguished as it is by puerile desires
and pursuits, by a failure of the memory, a
deficiency of the judgment, and a general
obliteration of the mental powers, its
external signs are easily appreciated, and
furnish at once abundant reason why, like
idiots and madmen, the superannuated
dotard is unfit to be the recipient of our
mystic instructions.

Section IV.

_Of the Political Qualifications of
Candidates.

The Constitutions of Masonry require, as
the only qualification referring to the
political condition of the candidate, or his
position in society, that he shall be
_free-born_. The slave, or even the man
born in servitude— though he may,
subsequently, have obtained his liberty— is
excluded by the ancient regulations from
initiation. The non-admission of a slave
seems to have been founded upon the best
of reasons; because, as Freemasonry
involves a solemn contract, no one can
legally bind himself to its performance
who is not a free agent and the master of
his own actions. That the restriction is
extended to those who were originally in a

servile condition, but who may have since
acquired their liberty, seems to depend on
the principle that birth, in a servile

condition,

is

accompanied

by

degradation of mind and abasement of

spirit,

which

no

subsequent

disenthralment can so completely efface as
to render the party qualified to perform his
duties, as a Mason, with that "freedom,
fervency, and zeal," which are said to have
distinguished our ancient Brethren.
"Children," says Oliver, "cannot inherit a
free and noble spirit except they be born
of a free woman."

The same usage existed in the spurious
Freemasonry or the Mysteries of the
ancient world. There, no slave, or men
born in slavery, could be initiated;
because, the prerequisites imperatively
demanded that the candidate should not
only be a man of irreproachable manners,

but also a free-born denizen of the country
in which the mysteries were celebrated.

Some masonic writers have thought that, in
this regulation in relation to free birth,
some allusion is intended, both in the
Mysteries and in Freemasonry, to the
relative conditions and characters of Isaac
and Ishmael. The former— the accepted
one, to whom the promise was given— was
the son of a free woman, and the latter,
who was cast forth to have "his hand
against every man, and every man's hand
against him," was the child of a slave.
Wherefore, we read that Sarah demanded
of Abraham, "Cast out this bondwoman
and her son; for the son of the bondwoman
shall not be heir with my son." Dr. Oliver,
in speaking of the grand festival with
which Abraham celebrated the weaning of
Isaac, says, that he "had not paid the same
compliment at the weaning of Ishmael,

because he was the son of a bondwoman,
and, consequently, could not be admitted
to participate in the Freemasonry of his
father, which could only be conferred on
free men born of free women." The ancient
Greeks were of the same opinion; for they
used the word [Greek: douloprepeia] or,
"slave manners," to designate any very
great impropriety of manners.

The Grand Lodge of England extends this
doctrine, that Masons should be free in all
their thoughts and actions, so far, that it
will not permit the initiation of a candidate
who is only temporarily deprived of his
liberty, or even in a place of confinement.
In the year 1782, the Master of the Royal
Military Lodge, at Woolwich, being
confined, most probably for debt, in the
King's Bench prison, at London, the lodge,
which was itinerant in its character, and
allowed to move from place to place with

its regiment, adjourned, with its warrant of
constitution, to the Master in prison, where
several Masons were made. The Grand
Lodge, being informed of the
circumstances, immediately summoned
the Master and Wardens of the lodge "to
answer for their conduct in making Masons
in the King's Bench prison," and, at the
same time, adopted a resolution, affirming
that "it is inconsistent with the principles of
Freemasonry for any Freemason's lodge to
be held, for the purposes of making,
passing, or raising Masons, in any prison
or place of confinement."

Section V.

_Of the Petition of Candidates for
Admission, and the Action thereon_.

The application of a candidate to a lodge,
for initiation, is called a "petition." This
petition should always be in writing, and
generally contains a statement of the
petitioner's age, occupation, and place of
residence, and a declaration of the motives
which have prompted the application,
which ought to be "a favorable opinion
conceived of the institution and a desire of
knowledge." [67] This petition must be
recommended by at least two members of
the lodge.

The petition must be read at a stated or
regular communication of the lodge, and
referred to a committee of three members

for an investigation of the qualifications
and character of the candidate. The
committee having made the necessary
inquiries, will report the result at the next
regular communication and not sooner.

The authority for this deliberate mode of
proceeding is to be found in the fifth of the
39 General Regulations, which is in these
words:

"No man can be made or admitted a
member of a particular lodge, without
previous notice one month before given to
the said lodge, in order to make due
inquiry into the reputation and capacity of
the candidate; unless by dispensation
aforesaid."

The last clause in this article provides for
the only way in which this probation of a
month can be avoided, and that is when

the Grand Master, for reasons satisfactory
to himself, being such as will constitute
what is called (sometimes improperly) a
case of emergency, shall issue a
dispensation permitting the lodge to
proceed forthwith to the election.

But where this dispensation has not been
issued, the committee should proceed
diligently and faithfully to the discharge of
their responsible duty. They must inquire
into the moral, physical, intellectual and
political qualifications of the candidate,
and make their report in accordance with
the result of their investigations.

The report cannot be made at a special
communication, but must always be
presented at a regular one. The necessity
of such a rule is obvious. As the Master can
at any time within his discretion convene a
special meeting of his lodge, it is evident

that a presiding officer, if actuated by an
improper desire to intrude an unworthy
and unpopular applicant upon the craft,
might easily avail himself for that purpose
of an occasion when the lodge being
called for some other purpose, the
attendance of the members was small, and
causing a ballot to be taken, succeed in
electing a candidate, who would, at a
regular meeting, have been blackballed
by some of those who were absent from
the special communication.

This regulation is promulgated by the
Grand Lodge of England, in the following
words: "No person shall be made a Mason
without a regular proposition at one lodge
and a ballot at the next regular stated
lodge;" it appears to have been almost
universally adopted in similar language by
the Grand Lodges of this country; and, if
the exact words of the law are wantincr in

any of the Constitutions, the general usage
of the craft has furnished an equivalent
authority for the regulation.

If the report of the committee is
unfavorable, the candidate should be
considered as rejected, without any
reference to a ballot. This rule is also
founded in reason. If the committee, after a
due inquiry into the character of the
applicant, find the result so
disadvantageous to him as to induce them
to make an unfavorable report on his
application, it is to be presumed that on a
ballot they would vote against his
admission, and as their votes alone would
be sufficient to reject him, it is held
unnecessary to resort in such a case to the
supererogatory ordeal of the ballot. It
would, indeed, be an anomalous
proceeding, and one which would reflect
crreat discredit on the motives and conduct

of a committee of inquiry, were its
members first to report against the
reception of a candidate, and then,
immediately afterwards, to vote in favor of
his petition. The lodges will not suppose,
for the honor of their committees, that such
a proceeding will take place, and
accordingly the unfavorable report of the
committee is always to be considered as a
rejection.

Another reason for this regulation seems to
be this. The fifth General Regulation
declares that no Lodge should ever make a
Mason without "due inquiry" into his
character, and as the duty of making this
inquiry is entrusted to a competent
committee, when that committee has
reported that the applicant is unworthy to
be made a Mason, it would certainly
appear to militate against the spirit, if not
the letter, of the regulation, for the lodge,

notwithstanding this report, to enter into a
ballot on the petition.

But should the committee of investigation
report favorably, the lodge will then
proceed to a ballot for the candidate; but,
as this forms a separate and important step
in the process of "making Masons," I shall
make it the subject of a distinct section.

Section VI.

Of Balloting for Candidates.

The Thirty-nine Regulations do not
explicitly prescribe the ballot-box as the
proper mode of testing the opinion of the
lodge on the merits of a petition for
initiation. The sixth regulation simply says
that the consent of the members is to be
"formally asked by the Master; and they
are to signify their assent or dissent _in
their own prudent way_ either virtually or
in form, but with unanimity." Almost
universal usage has, however, sanctioned
the ballot box and the use of black and
white balls as the proper mode of
obtaining the opinion of the members.

From the responsibility of expressing this
opinion, and of admitting a candidate into

the fraternity or of repulsing him from it,
no Mason is permitted to shrink. In
balloting on a petition, therefore, every
member of the Lodge is expected to vote;
nor can he be excused from the discharge
of this important duty, except by the
unanimous consent of his Brethren. All the
members must, therefore, come up to the
performance of this trust with firmness,
candor, and a full determination to do what
is right— to allow no personal timidity to
forbid the deposit of a black ball, if the
applicant is unworthy, and no illiberal
prejudices to prevent the deposition of a
white one, if the character and

qualifications of the candidate are

unobjectionable. And in all cases where a
member himself has no personal or
acquired knowledge of these

qualifications, he should rely upon and be

governed by the recommendation of his
Brethren of the Committee of Investigation,

who he has no right to suppose would
make a favorable report on the petition of
an unworthy applicant. [68]

The great object of the ballot is, to secure
the independence of the voter; and, for
this purpose, its secrecy should be
inviolate. And this secrecy of the ballot
gives rise to a particular rule which
necessarily flows out of it.

No Mason can be called to an account for
the vote which he has deposited. The very
secrecy of the ballot is intended to secure
the independence and irresponsibility to
the lodge of the voter. And, although it is
undoubtedly a crime for a member to vote
against the petition of an applicant on
account of private pique or personal
prejudice, still the lodge has no right to
judge that such motives alone actuated
him. The motives of men, unless divulged

by themselves, can be known only to God;
"and if," as Wayland says, "from any
circumstances we are led to entertain any
doubts of the motives of men, we are
bound to retain these doubts within our
own bosoms." Hence, no judicial notice
can be or ought to be taken by a lodge of a
vote cast by a member, on the ground of
his having been influenced by improper
motives, because it is impossible for the
lodge legally to arrive at the knowledge;
in the first place, of the vote that he has
given, and secondly, of the motives by
which he has been controlled.

And even if a member voluntarily should
divulge the nature of his vote and of his
motives, it is still exceedingly
questionable whether the lodge should
take any notice of the act, because by so
doing the independence of the ballot
might be impaired. It is through a similar

mode of reasoning that the Constitution of
the United States provides, that the
members of Congress shall not be
questioned, in any other place, for any
speech or debate in either House. As in
this way the freedom of debate is
preserved in legislative bodies, so in like
manner should the freedom of the ballot
be insured in lodges.

The sixth General Regulation requires
unanimity in the ballot. Its language is:
"but no man can be entered a Brother in
any particular lodge, or admitted to be a
member thereof, without the _unanimous
consent of all the members of that lodge_
then present when the candidate is
proposed." This regulation, it will be
remembered, was adopted in 1721. But in
the "New Regulations," adopted in 1754,
and which are declared to have been
enacted "only for amending or explaining

the Old Regulations for the good of
Masonry, without breaking in upon the
ancient rules of the fraternity, still
preserving the old landmarks," it is said:
"but it was found inconvenient to insist
upon unanimity in several cases; and,
therefore, the Grand Masters have allowed
the lodges to admit a member, if not above
three black balls are against him; though
some lodges desire no such
allowance." [69]

The Grand Lodge of England still acts
under this new regulation, and extends the
number of black balls which will reject to
three, though it permits its subordinates, if
they desire it, to require unanimity. But
nearly all the Grand Lodges of this country
have adhered to the old regulation, which
is undoubtedly the better one, and by
special enactment have made the
unanimous consent of all the Brethren

present necessary to the election of a
candidate.

Another question here suggests itself. Can
a member, who by the bye-laws of his
lodge is disqualified from the exercise of
his other franchises as a member, in
consequence of being in arrears beyond a
certain amount, be prevented from
depositing his ballot on the application of a
candidate? That by such a bye-law he may
be disfranchised of his vote in electing
officers, or of the right to hold office, will
be freely admitted. But the words of the
old regulation seem expressly, and
without equivocation, to require that
_every member presen t_ shall vote. The
candidate shall only be admitted "by the
unanimous consent of all the members of
that lodge then present when the
candidate is proposed." This right of the
members to elect or reject their

candidates is subsequently called "an
inherent privilege," which is not subject to
a dispensation. The words are explicit, and
the right appears to be one guaranteed to
every member so long as he continues a
member, and of which no bye-law can
divest him as long as the paramount
authority of the Thirty-nine General
Regulations is admitted. I should say, then,
that every member of a lodge present at
balloting for a candidate has a right to
deposit his vote; and not only a right, but a
duty which he is to be compelled to
perform; since, without the unanimous
consent of all present, there can be no
election.

Our written laws are altogether silent as to
the peculiar ceremonies which are to
accompany the act of balloting, which has
therefore been generally directed by the
local usage of different jurisdictions.

Uniformity, however, in this, as in all other
ritual observances, is to be commended,
and I shall accordingly here describe the
method which I have myself preferred and
practised in balloting for candidates, and
which is the custom adopted in the
jurisdiction of South Carolina. [70]

The committee of investigation having
reported favorably, the Master of the
lodge directs the Senior Deacon to
prepare the ballot box. The mode in which
this is accomplished is as follows:— The
Senior Deacon takes the ballot box, and,
opening it, places all the white and black
balls indiscriminately in one compartment,
leaving the other entirely empty. He then
proceeds with the box to the Junior and
Senior Wardens, who satisfy themselves
by an inspection that no ball has been left
in the compartment in which the votes are
to be deposited. I remark here, in passing,

that the box, in this and the other instance
to be referred to hereafter, is presented to
the inferior officer first, and then to his
superior, that the examination and
decision of the former may be
substantiated and confirmed by the higher
authority of the latter. Let it, indeed, be
remembered, that in all such cases the
usage of masonic _circumambulation_ is to
be observed, and that, therefore, we must
first pass the Junior's station before we can
get to that of the Senior Warden.

These officers having thus satisfied
themselves that the box is in a proper
condition for the reception of the ballots, it
is then placed upon the altar by the Senior
Deacon, who retires to his seat. The Master
then directs the Secretary to call the roll,
which is done by commencing with the
Worshipful Master, and proceeding
through all the officers down to the

youngest member. As a matter of
convenience, the Secretary generally
votes the last of those in the room, and
then, if the Tiler is a member of the lodge,
he is called in, while the Junior Deacon
tiles for him, and the name of the applicant
having been told him, he is directed to
deposit his ballot, which he does, and then
retires.

As the name of each officer and member is
called he approaches the altar, and having
made the proper masonic salutation to the
Chair, he deposits his ballot and retires to
his seat. The roll should be called slowly,
so that at no time should there be more
than one person present at the box; for, the
great object of the ballot being secrecy,
no Brother should be permitted so near the
member voting as to distinguish the color
of the ball he deposits.

The box is placed on the altar, and the
ballot is deposited with the solemnity of a
masonic salutation, that the voters may be
duly impressed with the sacred and
responsible nature of the duty they are
called on to discharge. The system of
voting thus described, is, therefore, far
better on this account than the one
sometimes adopted in lodges, of handing
round the box for the members to deposit
their ballots from their seats

The Master having inquired of the
Wardens if all have voted, then orders the
Senior Deacon to "take charge of the ballot
box." That officer accordingly repairs to
the altar, and taking possession of the box,
carries it, as before, to the Junior Warden,
who examines the ballot, and reports, if all
the balls are white, that "the box is clear in
the South," or, if there is one or more black
balls, that "the box is foul in the South."

The Deacon then carries it to the Senior
Warden, and afterwards to the Master,
who, of course, make the same report,
according to the circumstances, with the
necessary verbal variation of "West" and
"East."

If the box is _clear_— that is, if all the
ballots are white— the Master then
announces that the applicant has been
duly elected, and the Secretary makes a
record of the fact.

But if the box is declared to be _foul_, the
Master inspects the number of black balls;
if he finds two, he declares the candidate
to be rejected; if only one, he so states the
fact to the lodge, and orders the Senior
Deacon again to prepare the ballot box,
and a second ballot is taken in the same
way. This is done lest a black ball might
have been inadvertently voted on the first

ballot. If, on the second scrutiny, one black
ball is again found, the fact is announced
by the Master, who orders the election to
lie over until the next stated meeting, and
requests the Brother who deposited the
black ball to call upon him and state his
reasons. At the next stated meeting the
Master announces these reasons to the
lodge, if any have been made known to
him, concealing, of course, the name of the
objecting Brother. At this time the validity
or truth of the objections may be
discussed, and the friends of the applicant
will have an opportunity of offering any
defense or explanation. The ballot is then
taken a third time, and the result, whatever
it may be, is final. As I have already
observed, in most of the lodges of this
country, a reappearance of the one black
ball will amount to a rejection. In those
lodges which do not require unanimity, it
will, of course, be necessary that the

requisite number of black balls must be
deposited on this third ballot to insure a
rejection. But if, on inspection, the box is
found to be "clear," or without a black ball,
the candidate is, of course, declared to be
elected. In any case, the result of the third
ballot is final, nor can it be set aside or
reversed by the action of the Grand Master
or Grand Lodge; because, by the sixth
General Regulation, already so frequently
cited, the members of every particular
lodge are the best judges of the
qualifications of their candidates; and, to
use the language of the Regulation, "if a
fractious member should be imposed on
them, it might spoil their harmony, or
hinder their freedom, or even break and
disperse the lodge."

Section VII.

Of the Reconsideration of the Ballot.

There are, unfortunately, some men in our
Order, governed, not by essentially bad
motives, but by frail judgments and by
total ignorance of the true object and
design of Freemasonry, who never, under
any circumstances, have recourse to the
black ball, that great bulwark of Masonry,
and are always more or less incensed
when any more judicious Brother
exercises his privilege of excluding those
whom he thinks unworthy of participation
in our mysteries.

I have said, that these men are not
governed by motives essentially bad. This
is the fact. They honestly desire the
prosperity of the institution, and they

would not willfully do one act which would
impede that prosperity. But their
judgments are weak, and their zeal is
without knowledge. They do not at all
understand in what the true prosperity of
the Order consists, but really and
conscientiously believing that its actual
strength will be promoted by the increase
of the number of its disciples; they look
rather to the _quantity_ than to the
_quality_ of the applicants who knock at
the doors of our lodges.

Now a great difference in respect to the
mode in which the ballot is conducted, will
be found in those lodges which are free
from the presence of such injudicious
brethren, and others into which they have
gained admittance.

In a lodge in which every member has a
correct notion of the proper moral

qualifications of the candidates for
Masonry, and where there is a general
disposition to work well with a few, rather
than to work badly with many, when a
ballot is ordered, each Brother, having
deposited his vote, quietly and calmly
waits to hear the decision of the ballot box
announced by the Chair. If it is "clear," all
are pleased that another citizen has been
found worthy to receive a portion of the
illuminating rays of Masonry. If it is "foul,"
each one is satisfied with the adjudication,
and rejoices that, although knowing
nothing himself against the candidate,
some one has been present whom a more
intimate acquaintance with the character of
the applicant has enabled to interpose his
veto, and prevent the purity of the Order
from being sullied by the admission of an
unworthy candidate. Here the matter ends,
and the lodge proceeds to other business.

But in a lodge where one of these
injudicious and over-zealous Brethren is
present, how different is the scene. If the
candidate is elected, he, too, rejoices; but
his joy is, that the lodge has gained one
more member whose annual dues and
whose initiation fee will augment the
amount of its revenues. If he is rejected, he
is indignant that the lodge has been
deprived of this pecuniary accession, and
forthwith he sets to work to reverse, if
possible, the decision of the ballot box,
and by a volunteer defense of the rejected
candidate, and violent denunciations of
those who opposed him, he seeks to alarm
the timid and disgust the intelligent, so
that, on a _reconsideration_, they may be
induced to withdraw their opposition.

The _motion for reconsider ation_ is, then,
the means generally adopted, by such
seekers after quantity, to insure the

success of their efforts to bring all into our
fold who seek admission, irrespective of
worth or qualification. In other words, we
may say, that _the motion for
reconsideration is the great antagonist of
the purity and security of the ballot box_.
The importance, then, of the position
which it thus assumes, demands a brief
discussion of the time and mode in which a
ballot may be reconsidered.

In the beginning of the discussion, it may
be asserted, that it is competent for any
brother to move a reconsideration of a
ballot, or for a lodge to vote on such a
motion. The ballot is a part of the work of
initiating a candidate. It is the preparatory
step, and is just as necessary to his legal
making as the obligation or the investiture.
As such, then, it is clearly entirely under
the control of the Master. The Constitutions
of Masonry and the Rules and Regulations

of every Grand and Subordinate lodge
prescribe the mode in which the ballot
shall be conducted, so that the sense of the
members may be taken. The Grand Lodge
also requires that the Master of the lodge
shall see that that exact mode of ballot
shall be pursued and no other, and it will
hold him responsible that there shall be no
violation of the rule. If, then, the Master is
satisfied that the ballot has been regularly
and correctly conducted, and that no
possible good, but some probable evil,
would arise from its reconsideration, it is
not only competent for him, but it is his
solemn duty to refuse to permit any such
reconsideration. A motion to that effect, it
may be observed, will always be out of
order, although any Brother may
respectfully request the Worshipful Master
to order such a reconsideration, or suggest
to him its propriety or expediency.

If, however, the Master is not satisfied that
the ballot is a true indication of the sense
of the lodge, he may, in his own discretion,
order a reconsideration. Thus there may
be but one black ball;— now a single black
ball may sometimes be inadvertently
cast— the member voting it may have been
favorably disposed towards the candidate,
and yet, from the hurry and confusion of
voting, or from the dimness of the light or
the infirmity of his own eyes, or from some
other equally natural cause, he may have
selected a black ball, when he intended to
have taken a white one. It is, therefore, a
matter of prudence and necessary caution,
that, when only one black ball appears, the
Master should order a new ballot. On this
second ballot, it is to be presumed that
more care and vigilance will be used, and
the reappearance of the black ball will
then show that it was deposited
designedly.

But where two or three or more black balls
appear on the first ballot, such a course of
reasoning is not authorized, and the
Master will then be right to refuse a
reconsideration. The ballot has then been
regularly taken— the lodge has
emphatically decided for a rejection, and
any order to renew the ballot would only
be an insult to those who opposed the
admission of the applicant, and an indirect
attempt to thrust an unwelcome intruder
upon the lodge.

But although it is in the power of the
Master, under the circumstances which we
have described, to order a
reconsideration, yet this prerogative is
accompanied with certain restrictions,
which it may be well to notice.

In the first place, the Master cannot order a

reconsideration on any other night than
that on which the original ballot was
taken. [71] After the lodge is closed, the
decision of the ballot is final, and there is
no human authority that can reverse it. The
reason of this rule is evident. If it were
otherwise, an unworthy Master (for,
unfortunately, all Masters are not worthy)
might on any subsequent evening avail
himself of the absence of those who had
voted black balls, to order a
reconsideration, and thus succeed in
introducing an unfit and rejected
candidate into the lodge, contrary to the
wishes of a portion of its members.

Neither can he order a reconsideration on
the same night, if any of the Brethren who
voted have retired. All who expressed
their opinion on the first ballot, must be
present to express it on the second. The
reasons for this restriction are as evident

as for the former, and are of the same
character.

It must be understood, that I do not here
refer to those reconsiderations of the
ballot which are necessary to a full
understanding of the opinion of the lodge,
and which have been detailed in the
ceremonial of the mode of balloting, as it
was described in the preceding Section.

It may be asked whether the Grand Master
cannot, by his dispensations, permit a
reconsideration. I answer emphatically,
NO. The Grand Master possesses no such
prerogative. There is no law in the whole
jurisprudence of the institution clearer
than this— that neither the Grand Lodge nor
the Grand Master can interfere with the
decision of the ballot box. In Anderson's
Constitutions, the law is laid down, under
the head of "Duty of Members" (edition of

1755, p. 312), that in the election of
candidates the Brethren "are to give their
consent in their own prudent way, either
virtually or in form, but with unanimity."
And the regulation goes on to say: "Nor is
this inherent privilege _subject to a
dispensation^ because the members of a
lodge are the best judges of it; and
because, if a turbulent member should be
imposed upon them, it might spoil their
harmony, or hinder the freedom of their
communications, or even break and
disperse the lodge." This settles the
question. A dispensation to reconsider a
ballot would be an interference with the
right of the members "to give their consent
in their own prudent way;" it would be an
infringement of an "inherent privilege,"
and neither the Grand Lodge nor the
Grand Master can issue a dispensation for
such a purpose. Every lodge must be left
to manage its own elections of candidates

in its own prudent way.

I conclude this section by a summary of the
principles which have been discussed,
and which I have endeavored to enforce
by a process of reasoning which I trust
may be deemed sufficiently convincing.
They are briefly these:

1. It is never in order for a member to
move for the reconsideration of a ballot on
the petition of a candidate for initiation,
nor for a lodge to entertain such a motion.

2. The Master alone can, for reasons
satisfactory to himself, order such a
reconsideration.

3. The Master cannot order a
reconsideration on any subsequent night,
nor on the same night, after any member,
who was present and voted, has departed.

4. The Grand Master cannot grant a
dispensation for a reconsideration, nor in
any other way interfere with the ballot. The
same restriction applies to the Grand
Lodge.

Section VIII.

_Of the Renewal of Applications by
Rejected Candidates. _

As it is apparent from the last section that
there can be no reconsideration by a
lodge of a rejected petition, the question
will naturally arise, how an error
committed by a lodge, in the rejection of a
worthy applicant, is to be corrected, or
how such a candidate, when once
rejected, is ever to make a second trial, for
it is, of course, admitted, that
circumstances may occur in which a
candidate who had been once blackballed
might, on a renewal of his petition, be
found worthy of admission. He may have
since reformed and abandoned the vicious
habits which caused his first rejection, or it
may have been since discovered that that

rejection was unjust. How, then, is such a
candidate to make a new application?

It is a rule of universal application in
Masonry, that no candidate, having been
once rejected, can apply to any other
lodge for admission, except to the one
which rejected him. Under this regulation
the course of a second application is as
follows:

Some Grand Lodges have prescribed that,
when a candidate has been rejected, it
shall not be competent for him to apply
within a year, six months, or some other
definite period. This is altogether a local
regulation— there is no such law in the
Ancient Constitutions— and therefore,
where the regulations of the Grand Lodge
of the jurisdiction are silent upon the
subject, general principles direct the
following as the proper course for a

rejected candidate to pursue on a second
application. He must send in a new letter,
recommended and vouched for as before,
either by the same or other Brethren— it
must be again referred to a committee— lie
over for a month— and the ballot be then
taken as is usual in other cases. It must be
treated in all respects as an entirely new
petition, altogether irrespective of the fact
that the same person had ever before
made an application. In this way due
notice will be given to the Brethren, and all
possibility of an unfair election will be
avoided.

If the local regulations are silent upon the
subject, the second application may be
made at any time after the rejection of the
first, all that is necessary being, that the
second application should pass through
the same ordeal and be governed by the
same rules that prevail in relation to an

original

application.

Section IX.

_Of the necessary Probation and due
Proficiency of Candidates before
Advancements

There is, perhaps, no part of the
jurisprudence of Masonry which it is more
necessary strictly to observe than that
which relates to the advancement of
candidates through the several degrees.
The method which is adopted in passing
Apprentices and raising Fellow Crafts— the
probation which they are required to serve
in each degree before advancing to a
higher— and the instructions which they
receive in their progress, often materially
affect the estimation which is entertained
of the institution by its initiates. The
candidate who long remains at the porch
of the temple, and lingers in the middle

chamber, noting everything worthy of
observation in his passage to the holy of
holies, while he better understands the
nature of the profession upon which he has
entered, will have a more exalted opinion
of its beauties and excellencies than he
who has advanced, with all the rapidity
that dispensations can furnish, from the
lowest to the highest grades of the Order.
In the former case, the design, the
symbolism, the history, and the moral and
philosophical bearing of each degree will
be indelibly impressed upon the mind,
and the appositeness of what has gone
before to what is to succeed will be readily
appreciated; but, in the latter, the lessons
of one hour will be obliterated by those of
the succeeding one; that which has been
learned in one degree, will be forgotten in
the next; and when all is completed, and
the last instructions have been imparted,
the dissatisfied neophyte will find his

mind, in all that relates to Masonry, in a
state of chaotic confusion. Like Cassio, he
will remember "a mass of things, but
nothing distinctly."

An hundred years ago it was said that
"Masonry was a progressive science, and
not to be attained in any degree of
perfection, but by time, patience, and a
considerable degree of application and
industry. "[72] And it is because that due
proportion of time, patience and
application, has not been observed, that
we so often see Masons indifferent to the
claims of the institution, and totally unable
to discern its true character. The arcana of
the craft, as Dr. Harris remarks, should be
gradually imparted to its members,
according to their improvement.

There is no regulation of our Order more
frequently repeated in our constitutions,

nor one which should be more rigidly
observed, than that which requires of
every candidate a "suitable proficiency" in
one degree, before he is permitted to pass
to another. But as this regulation is too
often neglected, to the manifest injury of
the whole Order, as well as of the
particular lodge which violates it, by the
introduction of ignorant and unskillful
workmen into the temple, it may be worth
the labor we shall spend upon the subject,
to investigate some of the authorities
which support us in the declaration, that no
candidate should be promoted, until, by a
due probation, he has made "suitable
proficiency in the preceding degree."

In one of the earliest series of regulations
that have been preserved— made in the
reign of Edward III., it was ordained, "that
such as were to be admitted Master
Masons, or Masters of work, should be

examined whether they be able of cunning
to serve their respective Lords, as well the
lowest as the highest, to the honor and
worship of the aforesaid art, and to the
profit of their Lords."

Here, then, we may see the origin of that
usage, which is still practiced in every well
governed lodge, not only of demanding a
proper degree of proficiency in the
candidate, but also of testing that
proficiency by an examination.

This cautious and honest fear of the
fraternity, lest any Brother should assume
the duties of a position which he could not
faithfully discharge, and which is, in our
time, tantamount to a candidate's
advancing to a degree for which he is not
prepared, is again exhibited in the
charges enacted in the reign of James II.,
the manuscript of which was preserved in

the archives of the Lodge of Antiquity in
London. In these charges it is required,
"that no Mason take on no lord's worke,
nor any other man's, unless he know
himselfe well able to perform the worke,
so that the craft have no slander." In the
same charges, it is prescribed that "no
master, or fellow, shall take no apprentice
for less than seven years."

In another series of charges, whose exact
date is not ascertained, but whose
language and orthography indicate their
antiquity, it is said: "Ye shall ordain the
wisest to be Master of the work; and
neither for love nor lineage, riches nor
favor, set one over the work[73] who hath
but little knowledge, whereby the Master
would be evil served, and ye ashamed."

These charges clearly show the great
stress that was placed by our ancient

Brethren upon the necessity of skill and
proficiency, and they have furnished the
precedents upon which are based all the
similar regulations that have been
subsequently applied to Speculative
Masonry.

In the year 1722, the Grand Lodge of
England ordered the "Old Charges of the
Free and Accepted Masons" to be
collected from the ancient records, and,
having approved of them, they became a
part of the Constitutions of Speculative
Freemasonry. In these Charges, it is
ordained that "a younger Brother shall be
instructed in working, to prevent spoiling
the materials for want of judgment, and for
increasing and continuing of brotherly
love."

Subsequently, in 1767, it was declared by
the Grand Lodge, that "no lodge shall be

permitted to make and raise the same
Brother, at one and the same meeting,
without a dispensation from the Grand
Master, or his Deputy;" and, lest too
frequent advantage should be taken of this
power of dispensation, to hurry candidates
through the degrees, it is added that the
dispensation, "_on very particular
occasions only_, may be requested."

The Grand Lodge of England afterwards
found it necessary to be more explicit on
this subject, and the regulation of that
body is now contained in the following
language:

"No candidate shall be permitted to
receive more than one degree on the same
day, nor shall a higher degree in Masonry
be conferred on any Brother at a less
interval than four weeks from his receiving
a previous degree, nor until he has passed

an examination in open lodge in that
degree. "[74]

This seems to be the recognized principle
on which the fraternity are, at this day,
acting in this country. The rule is, perhaps,
sometimes, and in some places, in
abeyance. A few lodges, from an impolitic
desire to increase their numerical
strength, or rapidly to advance men of
worldly wealth or influence to high stations
in the Order, may infringe it, and neglect
to demand of their candidates that suitable
proficiency which ought to be, in Masonry,
an essential recommendation to
promotion; but the great doctrine that each
degree should be well studied, and the
candidate prove his proficiency in it by an
examination, has been uniformly set forth
by the Grand Lodge of the United States,
whenever they have expressed an opinion
on the subject.

Thus, for instance, in 1845, the late Bro.
A.A. Robertson, Grand Master of New
York, gave utterance to the following
opinion, in his annual address to the
intelligent body over which he presided:

"The practice of examining candidates in
the prior degrees, before admission to the
higher, in order to ascertain their
proficiency, is gaining the favorable notice
of Masters of lodges, and cannot be too
highly valued, nor too strongly
recommended to all lodges in this
jurisdiction. It necessarily requires the
novitiate to reflect upon the bearing of all
that has been so far taught him, and
consequently to impress upon his mind the
beauty and utility of those sublime truths,
which have been illustrated in the course
of the ceremonies he has witnessed in his
progress in the mystic art. In a word, it will

be the means of making competent
overseers of the work— and no candidate
should be advanced, until he has satisfied
the lodge, by such examination, that he
has made the necessary proficiency in the
lower degrees. "[75]

In 1845, the Grand Lodge of Iowa issued a
circular to her subordinates, in which she
gave the following admonition:

"To guard against hasty and improper
work, she prohibits a candidate from
being advanced till he has made
satisfactory proficiency in the preceding
degrees, by informing himself of the
lectures pertaining thereto; and to suffer a
candidate to proceed who is ignorant in
this essential particular, is calculated in a
high degree to injure the institution and
retard its usefulness."

The Grand Lodge of Illinois has practically
declared its adhesion to the ancient
regulation; for, in the year 1843, the
dispensation of Nauvoo Lodge, one of its
subordinates, was revoked principally on
the ground that she was guilty "of pushing
the candidate through the second and
third degrees, before he could possibly be
skilled in the preceding degree." And the
committee who recommended the
revocation, very justly remarked that they
were not sure that any length of probation
would in all cases insure skill, but they
were certain that the ancient landmarks of
the Order required that the lodge should
know that the candidate is well skilled in
one degree before being admitted to
another.

The Grand Lodges of Massachusetts and
South Carolina have adopted, almost in the
precise words, the regulation of the Grand

Lodge of England, already cited, which
requires an interval of one month to elapse
between the conferring of degrees. The
Grand Lodge of New Hampshire requires a
greater probation for its candidates; its
constitution prescribes the following
regulation: "All Entered Apprentices must
work five months as such, before they can
be admitted to the degree of Fellow Craft.
All Fellow Crafts must work in a lodge of
Fellow Crafts three months, before they
can be raised to the sublime degree of
Master Mason. Provided, nevertheless,
that if any Entered Apprentice, or Fellow
Craft, shall make himself thoroughly
acquainted with all the information
belonging to his degree, he may be
advanced at an earlier period, at the
discretion of the lodge."

But, perhaps, the most stringent rule upon
this subject, is that which exists in the

Constitution of the Grand Lodge of
Hanover, which is in the following words:

"No Brother can be elected an officer of a
lodge until he has been three years a
Master Mason. A Fellow Craft must work at
least one year in that degree, before he
can be admitted to the third degree. An
Entered Apprentice must remain at least
two years in that degree."

It seems unnecessary to extend these
citations. The existence of the regulation,
which requires a necessary probation in
candidates, until due proficiency is
obtained, is universally admitted. The
ancient constitutions repeatedly assert it,
and it has received the subsequent
sanction of innumerable Masonic
authorities. But, unfortunately, the practice
is not always in accordance with the rule.
And, hence, the object of this article is not

so much to demonstrate the existence of
the law, as to urge upon our readers the
necessity of a strict adherence to it. There
is no greater injury which can be inflicted
on the Masonic Order (the admission of
immoral persons excepted), than that of
hurrying candidates through the several
degrees. Injustice is done to the institution,
whose peculiar principles and
excellencies are never properly
presented— and irreparable injury to the
candidate, who, acquiring no fair
appreciation of the ceremonies through
which he rapidly passes, or of the
instructions which he scarcely hears, is
filled either with an indifference that never
afterwards can be warmed into zeal, or
with a disgust that can never be changed
into esteem. Masonry is betrayed in such
an instance by its friends, and often loses
the influence of an intelligent member,
who, if he had been properly instructed,

might have become one of its warmest and
most steadfast advocates.

This subject is so important, that I will not
hesitate to add to the influence of these
opinions the great sanction of Preston's
authority.

"Many persons," says that able
philosopher of Masonry, "are deluded by
the vague supposition that our mysteries
are merely nominal; that the practices
established among us are frivolous, and
that our ceremonies may be adopted, or
waived at pleasure. On this false
foundation, we find them hurrying through
all the degrees of the Order, without
adverting to the propriety of one step they
pursue, or possessing a single
qualification requisite for advancement.
Passing through the usual formalities, they
consider themselves entitled to rank as

masters of the art, solicit and accept
offices, and assume the government of the
lodge, equally unacquainted with the rules
of the institution they pretend to support,
or the nature of the trust they engage to
perform. The consequence is obvious;
anarchy and confusion ensue, and the
substance is lost in the shadow. Hence
men eminent for ability, rank, and fortune,
are often led to view the honors of
Masonry with such indifference, that when
their patronage is solicited, they either
accept offices with reluctance, or reject
them with disdain. "[76]

Let, then, no lodge which values its own
usefulness, or the character of our
institution, admit any candidate to a higher
degree, until he has made suitable
proficiency in the preceding one, to be
always tested by a strict examination in
open lodge. Nor can it do so, without a

palpable violation of the laws of Masonry.

Section X.

Of Balloting for Candidates

in each

Although there is no law, in the Ancient
Constitutions, which in express words
requires a ballot for candidates in each
degree, yet the whole tenor and spirit of
these constitutions seem to indicate that
there should be recourse to such a ballot.
The constant reference, in the numerous
passages which were cited in the
preceding Section, to the necessity of an
examination into the proficiency of those
who sought advancement, would
necessarily appear to imply that a vote of
the lodge must be taken on the question of
this proficiency. Accordingly, modern
Grand Lodges have generally, by special
enactment, required a ballot to be taken

on the application of an Apprentice or
Fellow Craft for advancement, and where
no such regulation has been explicitly laid
down, the almost constant usage of the
craft has been in favor of such ballot.

The Ancient Constitutions having been
silent on the subject of the letter of the law,
local usage or regulations must
necessarily supply the specific rule.

Where not otherwise provided by the
Constitutions of a Grand Lodge or the
bye-laws of a subordinate lodge, analogy
would instruct us that the ballot, on the
application of Apprentices or Fellow Crafts
for advancement, should be governed by
the same principles that regulate the ballot
on petitions for initiation.

Of course, then, the vote should be
unanimous: for I see no reason why a

lodge of Fellow Crafts should be less
guarded in its admission of Apprentices,
than a lodge of Apprentices is in its
admission of profanes.

Again, the ballot should take place at a
stated meeting, so that every member may
have "due and timely notice," and be
prepared to exercise his "inherent

privilege" of granting or withholding his

consent; for it must be remembered that

the man who was worthy or supposed to
be so, when initiated as an Entered

Apprentice, may prove to be unworthy
when he applies to pass as a Fellow Graft,
and every member should, therefore, have
the means and opportunity of passing his

judgment on that worthiness or
unworthiness.

If the candidate for advancement has been
rejected once, he may again apply, if there

is no local regulation to the contrary. But,
in such a case, due notice should be given
to all the members, which is best done by
making the application at one regular
meeting, and voting for it on the next. This,
however, I suppose to be only necessary
in the case of a renewed application after a

rejection. An Entered Apprentice or a
Fellow Craft is entitled after due probation
to make his application for advancement;
and his first application may be balloted
for on the same evening, provided it be a

regular meeting of the lodge

The

members are supposed to know what work
is before them to do, and should be there

to do it.

But the case is otherwise whenever a
candidate for advancement has been
rejected. He has now been set aside by the
lodge, and no time is laid down in the
regulations or usages of the craft for his

making a second application. He may
never do so, or he may in three months, in
a year, or in five years. The members are,
therefore, no more prepared to expect this
renewed application at any particular
meeting of the lodge, than they are to
anticipate any entirely new petition of a
profane. If, therefore, the second
application is not made at one regular
meeting and laid over to the next, the
possibility is that the lodge may be taken
by surprise, and in the words of the old
Regulation, "a turbulent member may be
imposed on it."

The inexpediency of any other course may
be readily seen, from a suppositions case.
We will assume that in a certain lodge, A,
who is a Fellow Craft, applies regularly for
advancement to the third degree. On this
occasion, for good and sufficient reasons,
two of the members, B and C, express

their dissent by depositing black balls. His
application to be raised is consequently
rejected, and he remains a Fellow Graft.
Two or three meetings of the lodge pass
over, and at each, B and C are present;
but, at the fourth meeting, circumstances
compel their absence, and the friends of A,
taking advantage of that occurrence, again
propose him for advancement; the ballot is
forthwith taken, and he is elected and
raised on the same evening. The injustice
of this course to B and C, and the evil to the
lodge and the whole fraternity, in this
imposition of one who is probably an
unworthy person, will be apparent to
every intelligent and right-minded Mason.

I do not, however, believe that a candidate
should be rejected, on his application for
advancement, in consequence of
objections to his moral worth and
character. In such a case, the proper

course would be to prefer charges, to try
him as an Apprentice or Fellow Craft; and,
if found guilty, to suspend, expel, or
otherwise appropriately punish him. The
applicant as well as the Order is, in such a
case, entitled to a fair trial. Want of
proficiency, or a mental or physical
disqualification acquired since the
reception of the preceding degree, is
alone a legitimate cause for an estoppal of
advancement by the ballot. But this subject
will be treated of further in the chapter on
the rights of Entered Apprentices.

Section XI.

_Of the Number to be Initiated at one
Communication.

The fourth General Regulation decrees
that "no Lodge shall make more than five
new Brothers at one time." This regulation
has been universally interpreted (and with
great propriety) to mean that not more
than five degrees can be conferred at the
same communication.

This regulation is, however, subject to
dispensation by the Grand Master, or
Presiding Grand Officer, in which case the
number to be initiated, passed, or raised,
will be restricted only by the words of the
dispensation.

The following, or fifth General Regulation,

says that "no man can be made or admitted
a member of a particular lodge, without
previous notice, one month before, given
to the same lodge."

Now, as a profane cannot be admitted an
Entered Apprentice, or in other words, a
member of an Entered Apprentices' lodge,
unless after one month's notice, so it
follows that an Apprentice cannot be
admitted a member of a Fellow Crafts'
lodge, nor a Fellow Craft of a Masters',
without the like probation. For the words
of the regulation which apply to one, will
equally apply to the others. And hence we
derive the law, that a month at least must
always intervene between the reception of
one degree and the advancement to
another. But this rule is also subject to a
dispensation.

Section XII.

_Of Finishing the Candidates of one Lodge
in another.

It is an ancient and universal regulation,
that no lodge shall interfere with the work
of another by initiating its candidates, or
passing or raising its Apprentices and
Fellow Crafts. Every lodge is supposed to
be competent to manage its own business,
and ought to be the best judge of the
qualifications of its own members, and
hence it would be highly improper in any
lodge to confer a degree on a Brother who
is not of its household.

This regulation is derived from a provision
in the Ancient Charges, which have very
properly been supposed to contain the
fundamental law of Masonry, and which

prescribes the principle of the rule in the
following symbolical language:

"None shall discover envy at the
prosperity of a Brother, nor supplant him
or put him out of his work, if he be capable
to finish the same; for no man can finish
another's work, so much to the Lord's
profit, unless he be thoroughly acquainted
with the designs and draughts of him that
began it."

There is, however, a case in which one
lodge may, by consent, legally finish the
work of another. Let us suppose that a
candidate has been initiated in a lodge at
A — , and, before he receives his second
degree, removes to B — , and that being,
by the urgency of his business, unable
either to postpone his departure from
A — , until he has been passed and raised,
or to return for the purpose of his

receiving his second and third degrees,
then it is competent for the lodge at A — to
grant permission to the lodge at B — to
confer them on the candidate.

But how shall this permission be given— by
a unanimous vote, or merely by a vote of
the majority of the members at A — ? Here
it seems to me that, so far as regards the
lodge at A — , the reasons for unanimity no
longer exist. There is here no danger that
a "fractious member will be imposed on
them," as the candidate, when finished,
will become a member of the lodge at
B — . The question of consent is simply in
the nature of a resolution, and may be
determined by the assenting votes of a
majority of the members at A — . It is,
however, to be understood, that if any
Brother believes that the candidate is
unworthy, from character, of further
advancement, he may suspend the

question of consent, by preferring charges
against him. If this is not done, and the
consent of the lodge is obtained, that the
candidate may apply to the lodge at B — ,
then when his petition is read in that lodge,
it must, of course, pass through the usual
ordeal of a month's probation, and a
unanimous vote; for here the old reasons
for unanimity once more prevail.

I know of no ancient written law upon this
subject, but it seems to me that the course I
have described is the only one that could
be suggested by analogy and common

Section XIII.

_Of the Initiation of Non-residents. _

The subject of this section is naturally
divided into two branches:— First, as to the
initiation by a lodge of a candidate, who,
residing in the same State or Grand Lodge
jurisdiction, is still not an inhabitant of the
town in which the lodge to which he
applies is situated, but resides nearer to
some other lodge; and, secondly, as to the
initiation of a stranger, whose residence is
in another State, or under the jurisdiction
of another Grand Lodge.

1. The first of these divisions presents a
question which is easily answered.
Although I can find no ancient regulation
on this subject, still, by the concurrent
authority of all Grand Lodges in this

country, at least, (for the Grand Lodge of
England has no such provision in its
Constitution,) every lodge is forbidden to
initiate any person whose residence is
nearer to any other lodge. If, however,
such an initiation should take place,
although the lodge would be censurable
for its violation of the regulations of its
superior, yet there has never been any
doubt that the initiation would be good and
the candidate so admitted regularly made.
The punishment must fall upon the lodge
and not upon the newly-made Brother.

2. The second division presents a more
embarrassing inquiry, on account of the
diversity of opinions which have been
entertained on the subject. Can a lodge in
one State, or Grand Lodge jurisdiction,
initiate the resident of another State, and
would such initiation be lawful, and the
person so initiated a regular Mason, or, to

use the technical language of the Order, a
Mason made "in due form," and entitled to
all the rights and privileges of the Order?

The question is one of considerable
difficulty; it has given occasion to much
controversy, and has been warmly
discussed within the last few years by
several of the Grand Lodges of the United
States.

In 1847, the Grand Lodge of Alabama
adopted the following regulation, which
had been previously enacted by the Grand
Lodge of Tennessee:

"Any person residing within the
jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, who has
already, or shall hereafter, travel into any
foreign jurisdiction, and there receive the
degrees of Masonry, such person shall not
be entitled to the rights, benefits, and

privileges of Masonry within this
jurisdiction, until he shall have been
regularly admitted a member of the
subordinate lodge under this Grand
Lodge, nearest which he at the time
resides, in the manner provided by the
Constitution of this Grand Lodge for the
admission of members."

The rule adopted by the Grand Lodge of
Maryland is still more stringent. It
declares, "that if any individual, from
selfish motives, from distrust of his
acceptance, or other causes originating in
himself, knowingly and willfully travel into
another jurisdiction, and there receive the
masonic degrees, he shall be considered
and held as a clandestine made Mason."

The Grand Lodge of New York, especially,
has opposed these regulations, inflicting a
penalty on the initiate, and assigns its

reasons for the opposition in the following
language:

"Before a man becomes a Mason, he is
subject to no law which any Grand Lodge
can enact. No Grand Lodge has a right to
make a law to compel any citizen, who
desires, to be initiated in a particular
lodge, or in the town or State of his
residence; neither can any Grand Lodge
forbid a citizen to go where he pleases to
seek acceptance into fellowship with the
craft; and where there is no right to
compel or to forbid, there can be no right
to punish; but it will be observed, that the
laws referred to were enacted to punish
the citizens of Maryland and Alabama, as
Masons and Brethren, for doing something
before they were Masons and Brethren,
which they had a perfect right to do as
citizens and freemen; and it must certainly
be regarded as an act of deception and

treachery by a young Mason, on returning
home, to be told, that he is 'a clandestine
Mason,' that he ’ought to be expelled,' or,
that he cannot be recognized as a Brother
till he 'joins a lodge where his residence
is,' because he was initiated in New York,
in England, or in France, after having
heard all his life of the universality and
oneness of the institution. "[77]

It seems to us that the Grand Lodge of New
York has taken the proper view of the
subject; although we confess that we are
not satisfied with the whole course of
reasoning by which it has arrived at the
conclusion. Whatever we may be inclined
to think of the inexpediency of making
transient persons (and we certainly do
believe that it would be better that the
character and qualifications of every
candidate should be submitted to the
inspection of his neighbors rather than to

that of strangers), however much we may
condemn the carelessness and facility of a
lodge which is thus willing to initiate a
stranger, without that due examination of
his character, which, of course, in the case
of non-residents, can seldom be obtained,
we are obliged to admit that such makings
are legal— the person thus made cannot be
called a clandestine Mason, because he
has been made in a legally constituted
lodge— and as he is a regular Mason, we
know of no principle by which he can be
refused admission as a visitor into any
lodge to which he applies.

Masonry is universal in its character, and
knows no distinction of nation or of
religion. Although each state or kingdom
has its distinct Grand Lodge, this is simply
for purposes of convenience in carrying
out the principles of uniformity and
subordination, which should prevail

throughout the masonic system. The
jurisdiction of these bodies is entirely of a
masonic character, and is exercised only
over the members of the Order who have
voluntarily contracted their allegiance. It
cannot affect the profane, who are, of
course, beyond its pale. It is true, that as
soon as a candidate applies to a lodge for
initiation, he begins to come within the
scope of masonic law. He has to submit to a
prescribed formula of application and
entrance, long before he becomes a
member of the Order. But as this formula is
universal in its operation, affecting
candidates who are to receive it and
lodges which are to enforce it in all places,
it must have been derived from some
universal authority. The manner, therefore,
in which a candidate is to be admitted, and
the preliminary qualifications which are
requisite, are prescribed by the
landmarks, the general usage, and the

ancient constitutions of the Order. And as
they have directed the _mode how_, they
might also have prescribed the _place
where_, a man should be made a Mason.
But they have done no such thing. We
cannot, after the most diligent search, find
any constitutional regulation of the craft,
which refers to the initiation of
non-residents. The subject has been left
untouched; and as the ancient and
universally acknowledged authorities of
Masonry have neglected to legislate on the
subject, it is now too late for any modern
and local authority, like that of a Grand
Lodge, to do so.

A Grand Lodge may, it is true, forbid— as
Missouri, South Carolina, Georgia, and
several other Grand Lodges have
done— the initiation of non-residents,
within its own jurisdiction, because this is a
local law enacted by a local authority; but

it cannot travel beyond its own territory,
and prescribe the same rule to another
Grand Lodge, which may not, in fact, be
willing to adopt it.

The conclusions, then, at which we arrive
no this subject are these: The ancient
constitutions have prescribed no
regulation on the subject of the initiation of
non-residents; it is, therefore, optional with
every Grand Lodge, whether it will or will
not suffer such candidates to be made
within its own jurisdiction; the making,
where it is permitted, is legal, and the
candidate so made becomes a regular
Mason, and is entitled to the right of
visitation.

What, then, is the remedy, where a person
of bad character, and having, in the
language of the Grand Lodge of Maryland,
"a distrust of his acceptance" at home,

goes abroad and receives the degrees of
Masonry? No one will deny that such a
state of things is productive of great evil to
the craft. Fortunately, the remedy is simple
and easily applied. Let the lodge, into
whose jurisdiction he has returned,
exercise its power of discipline, and if his
character and conduct deserve the
punishment, let him be expelled from the
Order. If he is unworthy of remaining in
the Order, he should be removed from it at
once; but if he is worthy of continuing in it,
there certainly can be no objection to his
making use of his right to visit.

Chapter II.

Of the Rights of Entered Apprentices.

In an inquiry into the rights of Entered
Apprentices, we shall not be much
assisted by the Ancient Constitutions,
which, leaving the subject in the position
in which usage had established it, are
silent in relation to what is the rule. In all
such cases, we must, as I have frequently
remarked before, in settling the law, have
recourse to analogy, to the general
principles of equity, and the dictates of
common sense, and, with these three as
our guides, we shall find but little difficulty
in coming to a right conclusion.

At present, an Entered Apprentice is not
considered a member of the Lodge, which
privilege is only extended to Master
Masons. This was not formerly the case.
Then the Master's degree was not as
indiscriminately conferred as it is now. A
longer probation and greater mental or
moral qualifications were required to

entitle a candidate to this sublime dignity.
None were called Master Masons but such
as had presided over their Lodges, and the
office of Wardens was filled by Fellow
Crafts. Entered Apprentices, as well as
Fellow Crafts, were permitted to attend the
communications of the Grand Lodge, and
express their opinions; and, in 1718, it was
enacted that every new regulation,
proposed in the Grand Lodge, should be
submitted to the consideration of even the
youngest Entered Apprentice. Brethren of
this degree composed, in fact, at that time,
the great body of the craft. But, all these
things have, since, by the gradual
improvement of our organization,
undergone many alterations; and Entered
Apprentices seem now, by universal
consent, to be restricted to a very few
rights. They have the right of sitting in all
lodges of their degree, of receiving all the
instructions which appertain to it, but not

of speaking or voting, and, lastly, of
offering themselves as candidates for
advancement, without the preparatory
necessity of a formal written petition.

These being admitted to be the rights of an
Entered Apprentice, few and unimportant
as they may be, they are as dear to him as
those of a Master Mason are to one who
has been advanced to that degree; and he
is, and ought to be, as firmly secured in
their possession. Therefore, as no Mason
can be deprived of his rights and
privileges, except after a fair and impartial
trial, and the verdict of his peers, it is clear
that the Entered Apprentice cannot be
divested of these rights without just such a
trial and verdict.

But, in the next place, we are to inquire
whether the privilege of being passed as a
Fellow Craft is to be enumerated among

these rights? And, we clearly answer, No.
The Entered Apprentice has the right of
making the application. Herein he differs
from a profane, who has no such right of
application until he has qualified himself
for making it, by becoming an Entered
Apprentice. But, if the application is
granted, it is _ex gratia_, or, by the favour
of the lodge, which may withhold it, if it
pleases. If such were not the case, the
lodge would possess no free will on the
subject of advancing candidates; and the
rule requiring a probation and an
examination, before passing, would be
useless and absurd— because, the neglect
of improvement or the want of competency
would be attended with no penalty.

It seems to me, then, that, when an
Apprentice applies for his second degree,
the lodge may, if it thinks proper, refuse to
grant it; and that it may express that refusal

by a ballot. No trial is necessary, because
no rights of the candidate are affected. He
is, by a rejection of his request, left in the
same position that he formerly occupied.
He is still an Entered Apprentice, in good
standing; and the lodge may, at any time it
thinks proper, reverse its decision and
proceed to pass him.

If, however, he is specifically charged with
any offense against the laws of Masonry, it
would then be necessary to give him a
trial. Witnesses should be heard, both for
and against him, and he should be
permitted to make his defense. The
opinion of the lodge should be taken, as in
all other cases of trial, and, according to
the verdict, he should be suspended,
expelled, or otherwise punished.

The effect of these two methods of
proceeding is very different. When, by a

ballot, the lodge refuses to advance an
Entered Apprentice, there is not,
necessarily, any stigma on his moral
character. It may be, that the refusal is
based on the ground that he has not made
sufficient proficiency to entitle him to pass.
Consequently, his standing as an Entered
Apprentice is not at all affected. His rights
remain the same. He may still sit in the
lodge when it is opened in his degree; he
may still receive instructions in that
degree; converse with Masons on masonic
subjects which are not beyond his
standing; and again apply to the lodge for
permission to pass as a Fellow Craft.

But, if he be tried on a specific charge, and
be suspended or expelled, his moral
character is affected. His masonic rights
are forfeited; and he can no longer be
considered as an Entered Apprentice in
good standing. He will not be permitted to

sit in his lodge, to receive masonic
instruction, or to converse with Masons on
masonic subjects; nor can he again apply
for advancement until the suspension or
expulsion is removed by the spontaneous
action of the lodge.

These two proceedings work differently in
another respect. The Grand Lodge will not
interfere with a subordinate lodge in
compelling it to pass an Entered
Apprentice; because every lodge is
supposed to be competent to finish, in its
own time, and its own way, the work that it
has begun. But, as the old regulations, as
well as the general consent of the craft,
admit that the Grand Lodge alone can
expel from the rights and privileges of
Masonry, and that an expulsion by a
subordinate lodge is inoperative until it is
confirmed by the Grand Lodge, it follows
that the expulsion of the Apprentice must

be confirmed by that body; and that,
therefore, he has a right to appeal to it for
a reversal of the sentence, if it was unjustly
pronounced.

Let it not be said that this would be placing
an Apprentice on too great an equality
with Master Masons. His rights are dear to
him; he has paid for them. No man would
become an Apprentice unless he
expected, in time, to be made a Fellow
Craft, and then a Master. He is, therefore,
morally and legally wronged when he is
deprived, without sufficient cause, of the
capacity of fulfilling that expectation. It is
the duty of the Grand Lodge to see that not
even the humblest member of the craft
shall have his rights unjustly invaded; and
it is therefore bound, as the conservator of
the rights of all, to inquire into the truth,
and administer equity. Whenever,
therefore, even an Entered Apprentice

complains that he has met with injustice
and oppression, his complaint should be
investigated and justice administered.

The question next occurs— What number of
black balls should prevent an Apprentice
from passing to the second degree? I
answer, the same number that would
reject the application of a profane for
initiation into the Order. And why should
this not be so? Are the qualifications which
would be required of one applying, for the
first time, for admission to the degree of an
Apprentice more than would subsequently
be required of the same person on his
applying for a greater favor and a higher
honor— that of being advanced to the
second degree? Or do the requisitions,
which exist in the earlier stages of
Masonry, become less and less with every
step of the aspirant's progress? Viewing
the question in this light— and, indeed, I

know of no other in which to view it— it
seems to me to be perfectly evident that
the peculiar constitution and principles of
our Order will require unanimity in the
election of a profane for initiation, of an
Apprentice for a Fellow Craft, and of a
Fellow Craft for a Master Mason; and that,
while no Entered Apprentice can be
expelled from the Order, except by due
course of trial, it is competent for the
lodge, at any time, on a ballot, to refuse to
advance him to the second degree. But, let
it be remembered that the lodge which
refuses to pass an Apprentice, on account
of any objections to his moral character, or
doubts of his worthiness, is bound to give
him the advantage of a trial, and at once to
expel him, if guilty, or, if innocent, to
advance him when otherwise qualified.

Chapter III.

Rights

of Fellow

Crafts.

In ancient times there were undoubtedly
many rights attached to the second degree
which have now become obsolete or been
repealed; for formerly the great body of
the fraternity were Fellow Crafts, and
according to the old charges, even the
Grand Master might be elected from
among them. The Master and Wardens of
Subordinate Lodges always were. Thus we
are told that no Brother can be Grand
Master, "unless he has been a Fellow Craft
before his election," and in the ancient
manner of constituting a lodge, contained
in the Book of Constitutions, [78] it is said
that "the candidates, or the new Master
and Wardens, being yet among the Fellow
Crafts, the Grand Master shall ask his
Deputy if he has examined them," etc. But
now that the great body of the Fraternity
consists of Master Masons, the
prerogatives of Fellow Crafts are
circumscribed within limits nearly as

narrow as those of Entered Apprentices.
While, however, Apprentices are not
permitted to speak or vote, in ancient
times, and up, indeed, to a very late date.
Fellow Crafts were entitled to take a part in
any discussion in which the lodge, while
open in the first or second degree, might
engage, but not to vote. This privilege is
expressly stated by Preston, as
appertaining to a Fellow Craft, in his
charge to a candidate, receiving that
degree.

"As a Craftsman, in our private assemblies
you may offer your sentiments and
opinions on such subjects as are regularly
introduced in the Lecture, under the
superintendence of an experienced
Master, who will guard the landmark
against encroachment." [79]

This privilege is not now, however,

granted in this country to Fellow Crafts.
All, therefore, that has been said in the
preceding chapter, of the rights of Entered
Apprentices, will equally apply, _mutatis
mutandis_, to the rights of Fellow Crafts.

Chapter IV.

Of the Riahts of Master

Masons.

When a Mason has reached the third
degree, he becomes entitled to all the
rights and privileges of Ancient Craft
Masonry. These rights are extensive and
complicated; and, like his duties, which
are equally as extensive, require a careful
examination, thoroughly to comprehend
them. Four of them, at least, are of so much
importance as to demand a distinct
consideration. These are the rights of
membership, of visitation, of relief, and of
burial. To each I shall devote a separate
section.

Section I.

Of the Right of Membership.

The whole spirit and tenor of the General
Regulations, as well as the uniform usage
of the craft, sustain the doctrine, that when
a Mason is initiated in a lodge, he has the
right, by signing the bye-laws, to become
a member without the necessity of
submitting to another ballot. In the
Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of New
York, this principle is asserted to be one of
the ancient landmarks, and is announced
in the following words: "Initiation makes a
man a Mason; but he must receive the
Master's degree, and sign the bye-laws
before he becomes a member of the
lodge. "[80] If the doctrine be not exactly a
landmark (which I confess I am not quite
prepared to admit), it comes to us almost

clothed with the authority of one, from the
sanction of universal and uninterrupted
usage.

How long before he loses this right by a
_non-user_, or neglect to avail himself of it,
is, I presume, a question to be settled by
local authority. A lodge, or a Grand Lodge,
may affix the period according to its
discretion; but the general custom is, to
require a signature of the bye-laws, and a
consequent enrollment in the lodge, within
three months after receiving the third
degree. Should a Mason neglect to avail
himself of his privilege, he forfeits it
(unless, upon sufficient cause, he is
excused by the lodge), and must submit to
a ballot.

The reason for such a law is evident. If a
Mason does not at once unite himself with
the lodge in which he was raised, but

permits an extended period of time to
elapse, there is no certainty that his
character or habits may not have changed,
and that he may not have become, since
his initiation, unworthy of affiliation. Under
the general law, it is, therefore, necessary
that he should in such case submit to the
usual probation of one month, and an
investigation of his qualifications by a
committee, as well as a ballot by the
members.

But there are other privileges also
connected with this right of membership.
A profane is required to apply for initiation
to the lodge nearest his place of residence,
and, if there rejected, can never in future
apply to any other lodge. But the rule is
different with respect to the application of
a Master Mason for membership.

A Master Mason is not restricted in his

privilege of application for membership
within any geographical limits. All that is
required of him is, that he should be an
affiliated Mason; that is, that he should be a
contributing member of a lodge, without
any reference to its peculiar locality,
whether near to or distant from his place of
residence. The Old Charges simply
prescribe, that every Mason ought to
belong to a lodge. A Mason, therefore,
strictly complies with this regulation, when
he unites himself with any lodge, thus
contributing to the support of the
institution, and is then entitled to all the
privileges of an affiliated Mason.

A rejection of the application of a Master
Mason for membership by a lodge does
not deprive him of the right of applying to
another. A Mason is in "good standing"
until deprived of that character by the
action of some competent masonic

authority; and that action can only be by
suspension or expulsion. Rejection does
not, therefore, affect the "good standing"
of the applicant; for in a rejection there is
no legal form of trial, and consequently the
rejected Brother remains in the same
position after as before his rejection. He
possesses the same rights as before,
unimpaired and undiminished; and among
these rights is that of applying for
membership to any lodge that he may
select.

If, then, a Mason may be a member of a
lodge distant from his place of residence,
and, perhaps, even situated in a different
jurisdiction, the question then arises
whether the lodge within whose precincts
he resides, but of which he is not a
member, can exercise its discipline over
him should he commit any offense
requiring masonic punishment. On this

subject there is, among masonic writers, a
difference of opinion. I, however, agree
with Brother Pike, the able Chairman of the
Committee of Correspondence of
Arkansas, that the lodge can exercise such
discipline. I contend that a Mason is
amenable for his conduct not only to the
lodge of which he may be a member, but
also to any one within whose jurisdiction
he permanently resides. A lodge is the
conservator of the purity and the protector
of the integrity of the Order within its
precincts. The unworthy conduct of a
Mason, living as it were immediately
under its government, is calculated most
injuriously to affect that purity and
integrity. A lodge, therefore, should not be
deprived of the power of coercing such
unworthy Mason, and, by salutary
punishment, of vindicating the character of
the institution. Let us suppose, by way of
example, that a Mason living in San

Francisco, California, but retaining his
membership in New York, behaves in such
an immoral and indecorous manner as to
bring the greatest discredit upon the
Order, and to materially injure it in the
estimation of the uninitiated community.
Will it be, for a moment, contended that a
lodge in San Francisco cannot arrest the
evil by bringing the unworthy Mason
under discipline, and even ejecting him
from the fraternity, if severity like that is
necessary for the protection of the
institution? Or will it be contended that
redress can only be sought through the
delay and uncertainty of an appeal to his
lodge in New York? Even if the words of
the ancient laws are silent on this subject,
reason and justice would seem to maintain
the propriety and expediency of the
doctrine that the lodge at San Francisco is
amply competent to extend its jurisdiction
and exercise its discipline over the culprit.

In respect to the number of votes
necessary to admit a Master Mason
applying by petition for membership in a
lodge, there can be no doubt that he must
submit to precisely the same conditions as
those prescribed to a profane on his
petition for initiation. There is no room for
argument here, for the General
Regulations are express on this subject.

"No man can be made or _admitted a
member, of a particular lodge," says the
fifth regulation, "without previous notice
one month before given to the said lodge."

And the sixth regulation adds, that "no man
can be entered a Brother in any particular
lodge, or _admitted to be a member,
thereof, without the unanimous consent of
all the members of that lodge then
present."

So that it may be considered as settled law,
so far as the General Regulations can settle
a law of Masonry, that a Master Mason can
only be admitted a member of a lodge
when applying by petition, after a month's
probation, after due inquiry into his
character, and after a unanimous ballot in
his favor.

But there are other rights of Master Masons
consequent upon membership, which
remain to be considered. In uniting with a
lodge, a Master Mason becomes a
participant of all its interests, and is
entitled to speak and vote upon all
subjects that come before the lodge for
investigation. He is also entitled, if duly
elected by his fellows, to hold any office in
the lodge, except that of Master, for which
he must be qualified by previously having
occupied the post of a Warden.

A Master has the right in all cases of an
appeal from the decision of the Master or
of the lodge.

A Master Mason, in good standing, has a
right at any time to demand from his lodge
a certificate to that effect.

Whatever other rights may appertain to
Master Masons will be the subjects of
separate sections.

Section II.

Of the Right of Visit.

Every Master Mason, who is an affiliated
member of a lodge, has the right to visit
any other lodge as often as he may desire
to do so. This right is secured to him by the
ancient regulations, and is, therefore,
irreversible. In the "Ancient Charges at the
Constitution of a Lodge," formerly
contained in a MS. of the Lodge of
Antiquity in London, and whose date is not
later than 1688 , [ 81 ] it is directed "that
every Mason receive and cherish strange
fellows when they come over the country,
and set them on work, if they will work as
the manner is; that is to say, if the Mason
have any mould stone in his place, he shall
give him a mould stone, and set him on
work; and if he have none, the Mason shall

refresh him with money unto the next
lodge."

This regulation is explicit. It not only infers
the right of visit, but it declares that the
strange Brother shall be welcomed,
"received, and cherished," and "set on
work," that is, permitted to participate in
the work of your lodge. Its provisions are
equally applicable to Brethren residing in
the place where the lodge is situated as to
transient Brethren, provided that they are
affiliated Masons.

In the year 1819, the law was in England
authoritatively settled by a decree of the
Grand Lodge. A complaint had been
preferred against a lodge in London, for
having refused admission to some
Brethren who were well known to them,
alleging that as the lodge was about to
initiate a candidate, no visitor could be

admitted until that ceremony was
concluded. It was then declared, "that it is
the undoubted right of every Mason who is
well known, or properly vouched, to visit
any lodge during the time it is opened for
general masonic business, observing the
proper forms to be attended to on such
occasions, and so that the Master may not
be interrupted in the performance of his
duty. "[ 82 ]

A lodge, when not opened for "general
masonic business," but when engaged in
the consideration of matters which interest
the lodge alone, and which it would be
inexpedient or indelicate to make public,
may refuse to admit a visitor. Lodges
engaged in this way, in private business,
from which visitors are excluded, are said
by the French Masons to be opened "_en
famille_."

To entitle him to this right of visit, a Mason
must be affiliated, that is, he must be a
contributing member of some lodge. This
doctrine is thus laid down in the
Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of
England:

"A Brother who is not a subscribing
member to some lodge, shall not be
permitted to visit any one lodge in the
town or place in which he resides, more
than once during his secession from the
craft."

A non-subscribing or unaffiliated Mason is
permitted to visit each lodge once, and
once only, because it is supposed that this
visit is made for the purpose of enabling
him to make a selection of the one with
which he may prefer permanently to unite.
But, afterwards, he loses this right of visit,
to discountenance those Brethren who

wish to continue members of the Order,
and to partake of its pleasures and
advantages, without contributing to its
support.

A Master Mason is not entitled to visit a
lodge, unless he previously submits to an
examination, or is personally vouched for
by a competent Brother present; but this is
a subject of so much importance as to
claim consideration in a distinct section.

Another regulation is, that a strange
Brother shall furnish the lodge he intends
to visit with a certificate of his good
standing in the lodge from which he last
hailed. This regulation has, in late years,
given rise to much discussion. Many of the
Grand Lodges of this country, and several
masonic writers, strenuously contend for
its antiquity and necessity, while others as
positively assert that it is a modern

innovation upon ancient usage.

There can, however, I think, be no doubt of
the antiquity of certificates. That the
system requiring them was in force nearly
two hundred years ago, at least, will be
evident from the third of the Regulations
made in General Assembly, December 27,
1663, under the Grand Mastership of the
Earl of St. Albans, [83] and which is in the
following words:

"3. That no person hereafter who shall be
accepted a Freemason, shall be admitted
into any lodge or assembly, until he has
brought a certificate of the time and place
of his acceptation, from the lodge that
accepted him, unto the Master of that limit
or division where such a lodge is kept."
This regulation has been reiterated on
several occasions, by the Grand Lodge of
England in 1772, and at subsequent

periods by several Grand Lodges of this
and other countries. It is not, however, in
force in many of the American
jurisdictions.

Another right connected with the right of
visitation is, that of demanding a sight of
the Warrant of Constitution. This
instrument it is, indeed, not only the right
but the duty of every strange visitor
carefully to inspect, before he enters a
lodge, that he may thus satisfy himself of
the legality and regularity of its character
and authority. On such a demand being
made by a visitor for a sight of its Warrant,
every lodge is bound to comply with the
requisition, and produce the instrument.
The same rule, of course, applies to lodges
under dispensation, whose Warrant of
Dispensation supplies the place of a
Warrant of Constitution.

Section III.

_Of the Examination of Visitors._

It has already been stated, in the
preceding section, that a Master Mason is
not permitted to visit a lodge unless he
previously submits to an examination, or is
personally vouched for by some
competent Brother present. The
prerogative of vouching for a Brother is an
important one, and will constitute the
subject of the succeeding section. At
present let us confine ourselves to the
consideration of the mode of examining a
visitor.

Every visitor, who offers himself to the
appointed committee of the lodge for
examination, is expected, as a preliminary
step, to submit to the Tiler's Obligation; so

called, because it is administered in the
Tiler's room. As this obligation forms no
part of the secret ritual of the Order, but is
administered to every person before any
lawful knowledge of his being a Mason has
been received, there can be nothing
objectionable in inserting it here, and in
fact, it will be advantageous to have the
precise words of so important a
declaration placed beyond the possibility
of change or omission by inexperienced
Brethren.

The oath, then, which is administered to
the visitor, and which he may, if he
chooses, require every one present to take
with him, is in the following words

"I, A. B., do hereby and hereon solemnly
and sincerely swear, that I have been
regularly initiated, passed, and raised, to
the sublime degree of a Master Mason, in a

just and legally constituted lodge of such,
that I do not now stand suspended or
expelled, and know of no reason why I
should not hold masonic communication
with my Brethren.

This declaration having been given in the
most solemn manner, the examination
must then be conducted with the

necessary forms. The good old rule of
"commencing at the beginning" should be

observed. Every question is to be asked
and every answer demanded which is

necessary to convince the examiner that
the party examined is acquainted with

what he ought to know, to entitle him to the
appellation of a Brother. Nothing is to be
taken for granted— categorical answers
must be required to all that it is deemed
important to be asked. No forgetfulness is
to be excused, nor is the want of memory
to be accepted as a valid excuse for the

want of knowledge. The Mason, who is so
unmindful of his duties as to have forgotten
the instructions he has received, must pay
the penalty of his carelessness, and be
deprived of his contemplated visit to that
society whose secret modes of recognition
he has so little valued as not to have
treasured them in his memory. While there
are some things which may be safely
passed over in the examination of one who
confesses himself to be "rusty," or but
recently initiated, because they are details
which require much study to acquire, and
constant practice to retain, there are still
other things of great importance which
must be rigidly demanded, and with the
knowledge of which the examiner cannot,
under any circumstances, dispense.

Should suspicions of imposture arise, let
no expression of these suspicions be made
until the final decree for rejection is

pronounced. And let that decree be
uttered in general terms, such as: "I am not
satisfied," or, "I do not recognize you," and
not in more specific terms, such as, "You
did not answer this inquiry," or, "You are
ignorant on that point." The visitor is only
entitled to know, generally, that he has not
complied with the requisitions of his
examiner. To descend to particulars is
always improper and often dangerous.

Above all, the examiner should never ask
what are called "leading questions," or
such as include in themselves an indication
of what the answer is to be; nor should he
in any manner aid the memory of the party
examined by the slightest hint. If he has it
in him, it will come out without assistance,
and if he has it not, he is clearly entitled to
no aid.

Lastly, never should an unjustifiable

delicacy weaken the rigor of these rules.
Let it be remembered, that for the wisest
and most evident reasons, the merciful
maxim of the law, which says, that it is
better that ninety-nine guilty men should
escape than that one innocent man should
be punished, is with us reversed, and that
in Masonry _it is better that ninety and
nine true men should be turned away from
the door of a lodge than that one cowan
should be admitted_.

Section IV.

Of Vouching for a Brother.

An examination may sometimes be
omitted when any competent Brother
present will vouch for the visitor's masonic
standing and qualifications. This
prerogative of vouching is an important
one which every Master Mason is entitled,
under certain restrictions, to exercise; but
it is also one which may so materially affect
the well-being of the whole
fraternity— since by its injudicious use
impostors might be introduced among the
faithful— that it should be controlled by the
most stringent regulations.

To vouch for one, is to bear witness for
him; and, in witnessing to truth, every
caution should be observed, lest falsehood

should cunningly assume its garb. The
Brother who vouches should, therefore,
know to a certainty that the one for whom
he vouches is really what he claims to be.
He should know this not from a casual
conversation, nor a loose and careless
inquiry, but, as the unwritten law of the
Order expresses it, from "_strict trial, due
examination, or lawful information^"

Of strict trial and due examination I have
already treated in the preceding section;
and it only remains to say, that when the
vouching is founded on the knowledge
obtained in this way, it is absolutely
necessary that the Brother so vouching
shall be _competent_ to conduct such an
examination, and that his general
intelligence and shrewdness and his
knowledge of Masonry shall be such as to
place him above the probability of being
imposed upon. The important and

indispensable qualification of a voucher is,
therefore, that he shall be competent. The
Master of a lodge has no right to accept,
without further inquiry, the avouchment of
a young and inexperienced, or even of an
old, if ignorant, Mason.

Lawful information, which is the remaining
ground for an avouchment, may be
derived either from the declaration of
another Brother, or from having met the
party vouched for in a lodge on some
previous occasion.

If the information is derived from another
Brother, who states that he has examined
the party, then all that has already been
said of the competency of the one giving
the information is equally applicable. The
Brother, giving the original information,
must be competent to make a rigid
examination. Again, the person giving the

information, the one receiving it, and the
one of whom it is given, should be all
present at the time; for otherwise there
would be no certainty of identity.
Information, therefore, given by letter or
through a third party, is highly irregular.
The information must also be positive, not
founded on belief or opinion, but derived
from a legitimate source. And, lastly, it
must not have been received casually, but
for the very purpose of being used for
masonic purposes. For one to say to
another in the course of a desultory
conversation: "A.B. is a Mason," is not
sufficient. He may not be speaking with
due caution, under the expectation that his
words will be considered of weight. He
must say something to this effect: "I know
this man to be a Master Mason," for such or
such reasons, and you may safely
recognize him as such. This alone will
insure the necessary care and proper

observance of prudence.

If the information given is on the ground
that the person, vouched has been seen
sitting in a lodge by the voucher, care
must be taken to inquire if it was a "Lodge
of Master Masons." A person may forget,
from the lapse of time, and vouch for a
stranger as a Master Mason, when the
lodge in which he saw him was only
opened in the first or second degree.

Section V.

Of the Right of Claiming Relief.

One of the great objects of our institution
is, to afford relief to a worthy, distressed
Brother. In his want and destitution, the
claim of a Mason upon his Brethren is
much greater than that of a profane. This is
a Christian as well as a masonic doctrine.
"As we have therefore opportunity," says
St. Paul, "let us do good unto all men,
especially unto them who are of the
household of faith."

This claim for relief he may present either
to a lodge or to a Brother Mason. The rule,
as well as the principles by which it is to
be regulated, is laid down in that
fundamental law of Masonry, the Old
Charges, in the following explicit words,

under the head of "Behavior towards a
strange Brother:"

"You are cautiously to examine him, in
such a method as prudence shall direct
you, that you may not be imposed upon by
an ignorant, false pretender, whom you
are to reject with contempt and derision,
and beware of giving him any hints of
knowledge.

"But if you discover him to be a true and
genuine Brother, you are to respect him
accordingly; and if he is in want, you must
relieve him if you can, or else direct him
how he may be relieved. You must employ
him some days, or else recommend him to
be employed. But you are not charged to
do beyond your ability, only to prefer a
poor Brother, that is a good man and true,
before any other people in the same
circumstances."

This law thus laid down, includes, it will be
perceived, as two important prerequisites,
on which to found a claim for relief, that
the person applying shall be in distress,
and that he shall be worthy of assistance.

He must be in distress. Ours is not an
insurance company, a joint stock
association, in which, for a certain
premium paid, an equivalent may be
demanded. No Mason, or no lodge, is
bound to give pecuniary or other aid to a
Brother, unless he really needs. The word "
benefit," as usually used in the modern
friendly societies, has no place in the
vocabulary of Freemasonry. If a wealthy
Brother is afflicted with sorrow or sickness,
we are to strive to comfort him with our
sympathy, our kindness, and our attention,
but we are to bestow our eleemosynary
aid only on the indigent or the destitute.

He must also be worthy. There is no
obligation on a Mason to relieve the
distresses, however real they may be, of
an unworthy Brother. The claimant must
be, in the language of the Charge, "true
and genuine." True here is used in its good
old Saxon meaning, of "faithful" or "trusty."
A true Mason is one who is mindful of his
obligations, and who faithfully observes
and practices all his duties. Such a man,
alone, can rightfully claim the assistance of
his Brethren.

But a third provision is made in the
fundamental law; namely, that the
assistance is not to be beyond the ability of
the giver. One of the most important
landmarks, contained in our unwritten law,
more definitely announces this provision,
by the words, that the aid and assistance
shall be without injury to oneself or his

family. Masonry does not require that we
shall sacrifice our own welfare to that of a
Brother; but that with prudent liberality,
and a just regard to our own worldly
means, we shall give of the means with
which Providence may have blessed us for
the relief of our distressed Brethren.

It is hardly necessary to say, that the claim
for relief of a worthy distressed Mason
extends also to his immediate family.

Section VI.

Of the Right of Masonic Burial.

After a very careful examination, I can find
nothing in the old charges or General
Regulations, nor in any other part of the
fundamental law, in relation to masonic
burial of deceased Brethren. It is probable
that, at an early period, when the great
body of the craft consisted of Entered
Apprentices, the usage permitted the
burial of members, of the first or second
degree, with the honors of Masonry. As far
back as 1754, processions for the purpose
of burying Masons seemed to have been
conducted by some of the lodges with
either too much frequency, or some other
irregularity; for, in November of that year,
the Grand Lodge adopted a regulation,
forbidding them, under a heavy penalty,

unless by permission of the Grand Master,
or his Deputy. [84] As there were,
comparatively speaking, few Master
Masons at that period, it seems a natural
inference that most of the funeral
processions were for the burial of
Apprentices, or, at least, of Fellow Crafts.

But the usage since then, has been greatly
changed; and by universal consent, the
law, as first committed to writing, by
Preston, who was the author of our present
funeral service, is now adopted.

The Regulation, as laid down by Preston, is
so explicit, that I prefer giving it in his own
words. [85]

"No Mason can be interred with the
formalities of the Order, unless it be at his
own special request, communicated to the
Master of the Lodcre of which he died a

member— foreigners and sojourners
excepted; nor unless he has been
advanced to the third degree of Masonry,
from which restriction there can be no
exception. Fellow Crafts or Apprentices
are not entitled to the funeral obsequies."

This rule has been embodied in the
modern Constitutions of the Grand Lodge
of England; and, as I have already
observed, appears by universal consent to
have been adopted as the general usage.

The necessity for a dispensation, which is
also required by the modern English
Constitutions, does not seem to have met
with the same general approval, and in this
country, dispensations for funeral
processions are not usually, if at all,
required. Indeed, Preston himself, in
explaining the law, says that it was not
intended to restrict the privileges of the

regular lodges, but that, "by the universal
practice of Masons, every regular lodge is
authorized by the Constitution to act on
such occasions when limited to its own
members." [86] It is only when members of
other lodges, not under the control of the
Master, are convened, that a dispensation
is required. But in America, Grand Lodges
or Grand Masters have not generally
interfered with the rights of the lodges to
bury the dead; the Master being of course
amenable to the constituted authorities for
any indecorum or impropriety.

Chapter V.

Of the Ricrhts of Past

Masters.

I have already discussed the right of Past
Masters to become members of a Grand
Lodge, in a preceding part of this
work, [87] and have there arrived at the
conclusion that no such inherent right
exists, and that a Grand Lodge may or may
not admit them to membership, according
to its own notion of expediency. Still the
fact, that they are competent by their
masonic rank of accepting such a courtesy
when extended, in itself constitutes a
prerogative; for none but Masters,
Wardens, or Past Masters, can under any
circumstances become members of a
Grand Lodge.

Past Masters possess a few other positive
rights.

In the first place they have a right to install
their successors, and at all times
subsequent to their installation to be

present at the ceremony of installing
Masters of lodges. I should scarcely have
deemed it necessary to dwell upon so
self-evident a proposition, were it not that
it involves the discussion of a question
which has of late years been warmly
mooted in some jurisdictions, namely,
whether this right of being present at an
installation should, or should not, be
extended to Past Masters, made in Royal
Arch Chapters.

In view of the fact, that there are two very
different kinds of possessors of the same
degree, the Grand Lodge of England has
long since distinguished them as "virtual"
and as "actual" Past Masters. The terms are
sufficiently explicit, and have the
advantage of enabling us to avoid
circumlocution, and I shall, therefore,
adopt them.

An _actual Past Master_ is one who has
been regularly installed to preside over a
symbolic lodge under the jurisdiction of a
Grand Lodge. A jvirtual Past Master_ is
one who has received the degree in a
chapter, for the purpose of qualifying him
for exaltation to the Royal Arch.

Now the question to be considered is this.
Can a virtual Past Master be permitted to
be present at the installation of an actual
Past Master?

The Committee of Correspondence of New
York, in 1851, announced the doctrine, that
a Chapter, or virtual Past Master, cannot
legally install the Master of a Symbolic
Lodge; but that there is no rule forbidding
his being present at the ceremony. This
doctrine has been accepted by several
Grand Lodges, while others again refuse to
admit the presence of a virtual Past Master

at the installation-service.

In South Carolina, for instance, by
uninterrupted usage, virtual Past Masters
are excluded from the ceremony of
installation.

In Louisiana, under the high authority of
the late Brother Gedge, it is asserted, that
"it is the bounden duty of all Grand Lodges
to prevent the possessors of the (chapter)
degree from the exercise of any function
appertaining to the office and attributes of
an installed Master of a lodge of Symbolic
Masonry, and refuse to recognize them as
belonging to the order of Past
Masters." [88]

Brother Albert Pike, whose opinion on
masonic jurisprudence is entitled to the
most respectful consideration, has
announced a similar doctrine in one of his

elaborate reports to the Grand Chapter of
Arkansas. He does not consider "that the

Past Master's degree, conferred in a
chapter, invests the recipient with any
rank or authority, except within the
chapter itself; that it no ways qualifies or
authorizes him to preside in the chair of a

lodge: that a lodge has no legal means of

knowing that he has received the degree

in a chapter: for it is not supposed to know

anything that takes place there any more

than it knows what takes place in a Lodge
of Perfection, or a Chapter of Knights of the
Rose Croix;" and, of course, if the Past

Masters of a lodge have no such "legal
means" of recognition of Chapter Masters,
they cannot permit them to be present at

an installation.

This is, in fact, no new doctrine. Preston, in
his description of the installation
ceremony, says: "The new Master is then

conducted to an adjacent room, where he
is regularly installed, and bound to his
trust in ancient form, in the presence of at
least _three installed Masters_"[89] And
Dr. Oliver, in commenting on this passage,
says, "this part of the ceremony can only
be orally communicated, nor can any but
_installed_ Masters be present. "[90]

And this rule appears to be founded on the
principles of reason. There can be no
doubt, if we carefully examine the history
of Masonry in this country and in England,
that the degree of Past Master was
originally conferred by Symbolic Lodges
as an honorarium or reward bestowed
upon those Brethren who had been found
worthy to occupy the Oriental Chair. In so
far it was only a degree of office, and could
be obtained only from the Lodge in which
the office had been conferred. At a later
period it was deemed an essential

prerequisite to exaltation in the degree of
Royal Arch, and was, for that purpose,
conferred on candidates for that position,
while the Royal Arch degree was under the
control of the symbolic Lodges, but still
only conferred by the Past Masters of the
Lodge. But subsequently, when the system
of Royal Arch Masonry was greatly
enlarged and extended in this country,
and chapters were organized independent
of the Grand and symbolic Lodges, these
Chapters took with them the Past Master's
degree, and assumed the right of
conferring it on their candidates. Hence
arose the anomaly which now exists in
American Masonry, of two degrees
bearing the same name, and said to be
almost identical in character, conferred by
two different bodies under entirely
different qualifications and for totally
different purposes. As was to be expected,
when time had in some decrree obliterated

the details of history, each party began to
claim for itself the sovereign virtue of
legitimacy. The Past Masters of the
Chapters denied the right of the Symbolic
Lodges to confer the degree, and the
latter, in their turn, asserted that the
degree, as conferred in the Chapter, was
an innovation.

The prevalence of the former doctrine
would, of course, tend to deprive the
Symbolic Lodges of a vested right held by
them from the most ancient times— that,
namely, of conferring an honorarium on
their Masters elect.

On the whole, then, from this view of the
surreptitious character of the Chapter
Degree, and supported by the high
authority whom I have cited, as well as by
the best usage, I am constrained to believe
that the true rule is, to deny the Chapter,

or Virtual Past Masters, the right to install,
or to be present at the installation of the
Master of a Symbolic Lodge. A Past Master
may preside over a lodge in the absence
of the Master, provided he is invited to do
so by the Senior Warden present. The
Second General Regulation gave the
power of presiding, during the absence of
the Master, to the last Past Master present,
after the lodge had been congregated by
the Senior Warden; but two years
afterwards, the rule was repealed, and the
power of presiding in such cases was
vested in the Senior Warden. And
accordingly, in this country, it has always
been held, that in the absence of the
Master, his authority descends to the
Senior Warden, who may, however, by
courtesy, offer the chair to a Past Master
present, after the lodge has been
congregated. Some jurisdictions have
permitted a Past Master to preside in the

absence of the Master and both Wardens,
provided he was a member of that lodge.
But I confess that I can find no warrant for
this rule in any portion of our fundamental
laws. The power of congregating the lodge
in the absence of the Master has always
been confined to the Wardens; and it
therefore seems to me, that when both the
Master and Wardens are absent, although
a Past Master may be present, the lodge
cannot be opened.

A Past Master is eligible for election to the
chair, without again passing through the
office of a Warden.

He is also entitled to a seat in the East, and
to wear a jewel and collar peculiar to his
dignity.

By an ancient regulation, contained in the
Old Charges, Past Masters alone were

eligible to the office of Grand Warden. The
Deputy Grand Master was also to be
selected from among the Masters, or Past
Masters of Lodges. No such regulation was
in existence as to the office of Grand
Master, who might be selected from the
mass of the fraternity. At the present time,
in this country, it is usual to select the
Grand officers from among the Past
Masters of the jurisdiction, though I know
of no ancient law making such a regulation
obligatory, except in respect to the affairs
of Grand Wardens and Deputy Grand
Master.

Chapter VI.

Affiliation.

Affiliation is defined to be the act by which
a lodge receives a Mason among its
members. A profane is said to be
"initiated," but a Mason is "affiliated. "[91]

Now the mode in which a Mason becomes
affiliated with a lodge, in some respects
differs from, and in others resembles, the
mode in which a profane is initiated.

A Mason, desiring to be affiliated with a
lodge, must apply by petition; this petition
must be referred to a committee for
investigation of character, he must remain
in a state of probation for one month, and
must then submit to a ballot, in which
unanimity will be required for his
admission. In all these respects, there is no
difference in the modes of regulating
applications for initiation and affiliation.
The Fifth and Sixth General Regulations,
upon which these usages are founded,

draw no distinction between the act of
making a Mason and admitting a member.
The two processes are disjunctively
connected in the language of both
regulations. "No man can be made, _or

admitted a member

* * * *

without

previous notice one month before;" are the
words of the Fifth Regulation. And in a
similar spirit the Sixth adds: "But no man
can be entered a Brother in any particular
lodge, _or admitted to be a member,
thereof, without the unanimous consent of
all the members of that lodge."

None but Master Masons are permitted to
apply for affiliation; and every Brother so
applying must bring to the lodge to which
he applies a certificate of his regular
dismission from the lodge of which he was
last a member. This document is now
usually styled a "demit," and should
specify the good standing of the bearer at

the time of his resignation or demission.

Under the regulations of the various Grand
Lodges of this country, a profane cannot,
as has been already observed, apply for
initiation in any other lodge than the one
nearest to his residence. No such
regulation, however, exists in relation to
the application of a Mason for affiliation.
Having once been admitted into the Order,
he has a right to select the lodge with
which he may desire to unite himself. He is
not even bound to affiliate with the lodge
in which he was initiated, but after being
raised, may leave it, without signing the
bye-laws, and attach himself to another.

A profane, having been rejected by a
lodge, can never apply to any other for
initiation. But a Mason, having been
rejected, on his application for affiliation,
by a lodge, is not thereby debarred from

subsequently making a similar application
to any other.

In some few jurisdictions a local regulation
has of late years been enacted, that no
Mason shall belong to more than one
lodge. It is, I presume, competent for a
Grand Lodge to enact such a regulation;
but where such enactment has not taken
place, we must be governed by the
ancient and general principle.

The General Regulations, adopted in 1721,
contain no reference to this case; but in a
new regulation, adopted on the 19th
February, 1723, it was declared that "no
Brother shall belong to more than one
lodge within the bills of mortality." This
rule was, therefore, confined to the lodges
in the city of London, and did not affect the
country lodges. Still, restricted as it was in
its operation, Anderson remarks, "this

regulation is neglected for several
reasons, and now obsolete. "[92] Custom
now in England and in other parts of
Europe, as well as in some few portions of
this country, is adverse to the regulation;
and where no local law exists in a
particular jurisdiction, I know of no
principle of masonic jurisprudence which
forbids a Mason to affiliate himself with
more than one lodge.

The only objection to it is one which must
be urged, not by the Order, but by the
individual. It is, that his duties and his
responsibilities are thus multiplied, as well
as his expenses. If he is willing to incur all
this additional weight in running his race
of Masonry, it is not for others to resist this
exuberance of zeal. The Mason, however,
who is affiliated with more than one lodge,
must remember that he is subject to the
independent jurisdiction of each; may for

the same offense be tried in each, and,
although acquitted by all except one, that,
if convicted by that one, his conviction will,
if he be suspended or expelled, work his
suspension or expulsion in all the others.

Chapter VII.

Demitting.

To demit from a lodge is to resign one's
membership, on which occasion a
certificate of good standing and a release
from all dues is given to the applicant,
which is technically called a _demit_.

The right to demit or resign never has,
until within a few years, been denied. In
1853, the Grand Lodge of Connecticut
adopted a regulation "that no lodge should
grant a demit to any of its members,
except for the purpose of joining some
other lodge; and that no member shall be
considered as having withdrawn from one
lodge until he has actually become a
member of another." Similar regulations
have been either adopted or proposed by
a few other Grand Lodges, but I much
doubt both their expediency and their
legality. This compulsory method of
keeping Masons, after they have once
been made, seems to me to be as

repugnant to the voluntary character of our
institution as would be a compulsory mode
of making them in the beginning. The
expediency of such a regulation is also
highly questionable. Every candidate is
required to come to our doors "of his own
free will and accord," and surely we
should desire to keep none among us after
that free will is no longer felt. We are all
familiar with the Hudibrastic adage, that

"A man convinced against his will,
of the same opinion still,"

Is

and he who is no longer actuated by that
ardent esteem for the institution which
would generate a wish to continue his
membership, could scarcely have his
slumbering zeal awakened, or his
coldness warmed by the bolts and bars of
a regulation that should keep him a
reluctant prisoner within the walls from

which he would gladly escape. Masons
with such dispositions we can gladly spare
from our ranks.

The Ancient Charges, while they assert
that every Mason should belong to a
lodge, affix no penalty for disobedience.
No man can be compelled to continue his
union with a society, whether it be
religious, political, or social, any longer
than will suit his own inclinations or sense
of duty. To interfere with this inalienable
prerogative of a freeman would be an
infringement on private rights. A Mason's
initiation was voluntary, and his
continuance in the Order must be equally
so.

But no man is entitled to a demit, unless at
the time of demanding it he be in good
standing and free from all charges. If
under charges for crime, he must remain

and abide his trial, or if in arrears, must
pay up his dues.

There is, however, one case of demission
for which a special law has been enacted.
That is, when several Brethren at the same
time request demits from a lodge. As this
action is sometimes the result of pique or
anger, and as the withdrawal of several
members at once might seriously impair
the prosperity, or perhaps even endanger
the very existence of the lodge, it has been
expressly forbidden by the General
Regulations, unless the lodge has become
too numerous for convenient working; and
not even then is permitted except by a
Dispensation. The words of this law are to
be found in the Eighth General Regulation,
as follows:

"No set or number of Brethren shall
withdraw or separate themselves from the

lodge in which they were made Brethren,
or were afterwards admitted members,
unless the lodge becomes too numerous;
nor even then, without a dispensation from
the Grand Master or his Deputy; and when
they are thus separated, they must either
immediately join themselves to such other
lodge as they shall like best, with the
unanimous consent of that other lodge to
which they go, or else they must obtain the
Grand Master's warrant to join in forming a
new lodge."

It seems, therefore, that, although a lodge
cannot deny the right of a single member
to demit, when a sort of conspiracy may be
supposed to be formed, and several
Brethren present their petitions for demits
at one and the same time, the lodge may
not only refuse, but is bound to do so,
unless under a dispensation, which
dispensation can only be given in the case

of an over-populous lodge.

With these restrictions and qualifications, it
cannot be doubted that every Master
Mason has a right to demit from his lodge
at his own pleasure. What will be the result
upon himself, in his future relations to the
Order, of such demission, will constitute
the subject of the succeeding chapter.

Chapter VIII.

Of

Unaffiliated

Masons.

An unaffiliated Mason is one who is not
connected by membership with any lodge.
There can be no doubt that such a position
is contrary to the spirit of our institution,
and that affiliation is a duty obligatory on
every Mason. The Old Charges, which
have been so often cited as the
fundamental law of Masonry, say on this
subject: "every Brother ought to belong to
a lodge and to be subject to its bye-laws
and the General Regulations."

Explicitly as this doctrine has been
announced, it has been too little observed,
in consequence of no precise penalty
having been annexed to its violation. In all
times,

unaffiliated

Masons

have

existed— Masons who have withdrawn from
all active participation in the duties and
responsibilities of the Order, and who,
when in the hour of danger or distress,
have not hesitated to claim its protection or

assistance, while they have refused in the
day of their prosperity to add anything to
its wealth, its power, or its influence. In this
country, the anti-masonic persecutions of
1828 , and a few years subsequently, by
causing the cessation of many lodges,
threw a vast number of Brethren out of all
direct connection with the institution; on
the restoration of peace, and the renewal
of labor by the lodges, too many of these
Brethren neglected to reunite themselves
with the craft, and thus remained
unaffiliated. The habit, thus introduced,
was followed by others, until the sin of
unaffiliation has at length arrived at such a
point of excess, as to have become a
serious evil, and to have attracted the
attention and received the condemnation
of almost every Grand Lodge.

A few Grand Lodges have denied the right
of a Mason permanently to demit from the

Order. Texas, for instance, has declared
that "it does not recognize the right of a
Mason to demit or separate himself from
the lodge in which he was made, or may
afterwards be admitted, except for the
purpose of joining another lodge, or when
he may be about to remove without the
jurisdiction of the lodge of which he may
be a member. "[93] A few other Grand
Lodges have adopted a similar regulation;
but the prevailing opinion of the
authorities appears to be, that it is
competent to interfere with the right to
demit, certain rights and prerogatives
being, however, lost by such demission.

Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and one or two
other Grand Lodges, while not positively
denying the right of demission, have at
various times levied a tax or contribution
on the demitted or unaffiliated Masons
within their respective jurisdictions. This

principle, however, has also failed to
obtain the general concurrence of other
Grand Lodges, and some of them, as
Maryland, have openly denounced it. After
a careful examination of the authorities, I
cannot deny to any man the right of
withdrawing, whensoever he pleases, from
a voluntary association— the laws of the
land would not sustain us in the
enforcement of such a regulation; and our
own self-respect should prevent us from
attempting it. If, then, he has a right to
withdraw, it clearly follows that we have no
right to tax him, which is only one mode of
inflicting a fine or penalty for an act, the
right to do which we have acceded. In the
strong language of the Committee of
Correspondence of Maryland: [94] "The
object of Masonry never was to extort,
_nolens volens,_ money from its votaries.
Such are not its principles or teaching. The

advocating such doctrines cannot advance

the interest or reputation of the institution;
but will, as your committee fear, do much
to destroy its usefulness. Compulsive
membership deprives it of the title, _Free_
and Accepted."

But as it is an undoubted precept of the
Order that every Mason should belong to a
lodge, and contribute, so far as his means
will allow, to the support of the institution,
and as, by his demission, for other than
temporary purposes, he violates the
principles and disobeys the precepts of
the Order, it naturally follows that his
withdrawal must place him in a different
position from that which he would occupy
as an affiliated Mason. It is now time for us
to inquire what that new position is.

We may say, then, that, whenever a Mason
permanently withdraws his membership,
he at once, and while he continues

unaffiliated, dissevers all connection

between

himself

and

the

Lodge

organization of the Order. He, by this act,
divests himself of all the rights and
privileges which belong to him as a
member of that organization. Among these
rights and privileges are those of
visitation, of pecuniary aid, and of masonic
burial. Whenever he approaches the door
of a lodge, asking to enter or seeking for
assistance, he is to be met in the light of a
profane. He may knock, but the door must
not be opened— he may ask, but he is not
to receive. The work of the lodge is not to
be shared by those who have thrown aside
their aprons and their implements, and
abandoned the labors of the Temple— the
funds of the lodge are to be distributed
only among these who are aiding, by their
individual contributions, to the formation
of similar funds in other lodges.

But from the well-known and
universally-admitted maxim of "once a
Mason, and always a Mason," it follows that
a demitted Brother cannot by such
demission divest himself of all his masonic
responsibilities to his Brethren, nor be
deprived of their correlative responsibility
to him. An unaffiliated Mason is still bound
by certain obligations, of which he cannot,
under any circumstances, divest himself,
and by similar obligations are the
fraternity bound to him. These relate to the
duties of secrecy and of aid in the
imminent hour of peril. Of the first of these
there can be no doubt; and as to the last,
the words of the precept directing it leaves
us no option; nor is it a time when the
G.H.S. of D. is thrown out to inquire into
the condition of the party.

Speaking on this subject, Brother Albert
Pike, in his report to the Grand Lodge of

Arkansas, says "if a person appeals to us as
a Mason in imminent peril, or such
pressing need that we have not time to
inquire into his worthiness, then, lest we
might refuse to relieve and aid a worthy
Brother, we must not stop to inquire _as to
anything_." But I do not think that the
learned Brother has put the case in the
strongest light. It is not alone "lest we
might refuse to relieve and aid a worthy
Brother," that we are in cases of "imminent
peril" to make no pause for deliberation.
But it is because we are bound by our
highest obligations at all times, and to all
Masons, to give that aid when _duly_
called for.

I may, then, after this somewhat protracted
discussion, briefly recapitulate the
position, the rights and the responsibilities
of an unaffiliated Mason as follows:

1. An unaffiliated Mason is still bound by
all his masonic duties and obligations,
excepting those connected with the
organization of the lodge.

2. He has a right to aid in imminent peril
when _he asks for that aid in the_ proper
_and conventional way_.

3. He loses the right to receive pecuniary
relief.

4. He loses the general right to visit[95]
lodges, or to walk in masonic processions.

5. He loses the right of masonic burial.

6. He still remains subject to the
government of the Order, and may be
tried and punished for any offense as an
affiliated Mason would be, by the lodge
within whose geographical jurisdiction he

resides.

Book Fourth.

Of Masonic Crimes and Punishments.

Chapter I.

Of What Are Masonic

Crimes.

The division of wrongs, by the writers on
municipal law, into private and public, or
civil injuries and crimes and
misdemeanors, does not apply to the
jurisprudence of Freemasonry. Here all
wrongs are crimes, because they are a
violation of the precepts of the institution;
and an offense against an individual is
punished, not so much because it is a
breach of his private rights, as because it
affects the well-being of the whole masonic
community.

In replying to the question, "what are
masonic crimes?" by which is meant what
crimes are punishable by the constituted
authorities, our safest guide will be that
fundamental law which is contained in the
Old Charges. These give a concise, but
succinct summary of the duties of a Mason,
and, of course, whatever is a violation of
any one of these duties will constitute a

masonic crime, and the perpetrator will be
amenable to masonic punishment.

But before entering on the consideration of
these penal offenses, it will be well that we
should relieve the labor of the task, by
inquiring what crimes or offenses are not
supposed to come within the purview of
masonic jurisprudence.

Religion and politics are subjects which it
is well known are stringently forbidden to
be introduced into Masonry. And hence
arises the doctrine, that Masonry will not
take congnizance of religious or political
offenses.

Heresy, for instance, is not a masonic
crime. Masons are obliged to use the
words of the Old Charges, "to that religion
in which all men agree, leaving their
particular opinions to themselves;" and,

therefore, as long as a Mason
acknowledges his belief in the existence of
one God, a lodge can take no action on his
peculiar opinions, however heterodox
they may be.

In like manner, although all the most
ancient and universally-received precepts
of the institution inculcate obedience to the
civil powers, and strictly forbid any
mingling in plots or conspiracies against
the peace and welfare of the nation, yet no
offense against the state, which is simply
political in its character, can be noticed by
a lodge. On this important subject, the Old
Charges are remarkably explicit. They
say, putting perhaps the strongest case by
way of exemplifying the principle, "that if a
Brother should be a rebel against the State,
he is not to be countenanced in his
rebellion, however he may be pitied as an
unhappy man; and, if convicted of no other

crime, though the loyal Brotherhood must
and ought to disown his rebellion, and
give no umbrage or ground of political
jealousy to the government for the time
being, _they cannot expel him from the
lodge, and his relation to it remains
indefeasible_"

The lodge can, therefore, take no
cognizance of religious or political
offenses.

The first charge says: "a Mason is obliged
by his tenure to obey the moral law." Now,
although, in a theological sense, the ten
commandments are said to embrace and
constitute the moral law, because they are
its best exponent, yet jurists have given to
the term a more general latitude, in
defining the moral laws to be "the eternal,
immutable laws of good and evil, to which
the Creator himself, in all dispensations,

conforms, and which he has enabled
human reason to discover, so far as they
are necessary for the conduct of human
actions. "[96] Perhaps the well known
summary of Justinian will give the best
idea of what this law is, namely, that we
"should live honestly, (that is to say,
without reproach,) [97] should injure
nobody, and render to every one his just
due."

If such, then, be the meaning of the moral
law, and if every Mason is by his tenure
obliged to obey it, it follows, that all such
crimes as profane swearing or great
impiety in any form, neglect of social and
domestic duties, murder and its
concomitant vices of cruelty and hatred,
adultery, dishonesty in any shape, perjury
or malevolence, and habitual falsehood,
inordinate covetousness, and in short, all
those ramifications of these leadincr vices

which injuriously affect the relations of
man to God, his neighbor, and himself, are
proper subjects of lodge jurisdiction.
Whatever moral defects constitute the bad
man, make also the bad Mason, and
consequently come under the category of
masonic offenses. The principle is so plain
and comprehensible as to need no further
exemplification. It is sufficient to say that,
whenever an act done by a Mason is
contrary to or subsersive of the three great
duties which he owes to God, his
neighbor, and himself, it becomes at once
a subject of masonic investigation, and of
masonic punishment.

But besides these offenses against the
universal moral law, there are many others
arising from the peculiar nature of our
institution. Among these we may mention,
and in their order, those that are
enumerated in the several sections of the

Sixth Chapter of the Old Charges. These
are, unseemly and irreverent conduct in
the lodge, all excesses of every kind,
private piques or quarrels brought into the
lodge; imprudent conversation in relation
to Masonry in the presence of uninitiated
strangers; refusal to relieve a worthy
distressed Brother, if in your power; and
all "wrangling, quarreling, back-biting,
and slander."

The lectures in the various degrees, and
the Ancient Charges read on the
installation of the Master of a lodge, furnish
us with other criteria for deciding what are
peculiarly masonic offenses. All of them
need not be detailed; but among them may
be particularly mentioned the following:

All

improper

revelations,

undue

solicitations for candidates, angry and
over-zealous arguments in favor of
Masonry with its enemies, every act which

tends to impair the unsullied purity of the
Order, want of reverence for and
obedience to masonic superiors, the
expression of a contemptuous opinion of
the original rulers and patrons of Masonry,
or of the institution itself; all countenance
of impostors; and lastly, holding masonic
communion with clandestine Masons, or
visiting irregular lodges.

From this list, which, extended as it is,
might easily have been enlarged, it will be
readily seen, that the sphere of masonic
penal jurisdiction is by no means limited. It
should, therefore, be the object of every
Mason, to avoid the censure or reproach of
his Brethren, by strictly confining himself
as a point within that circle of duty which,
at his first initiation, was presented to him
as an object worthy of his consideration.

Chapter II.

Of Masonic

Punishments.

Having occupied the last chapter in a
consideration of what constitute masonic
crimes, it is next in order to inquire how
these offenses are to be punished; and
accordingly I propose in the following
sections to treat of the various modes in
which masonic law is vindicated,
commencing with the slightest mode of
punishment, which is censure, and
proceeding to the highest, or expulsion
from all the rights and privileges of the
Order.

Section I.

_Of Censure. _

A censure is the mildest form of
punishment that can be inflicted by a
lodge; and as it is simply the expression of
an opinion by the members of the lodge,
that they do not approve of the conduct of
the person implicated, in a particular point
of view, and as it does not in any degree
affect the masonic standing of the one
censured, nor for a moment suspend or
abridge his rights and benefits, I have no
doubt that it may be done on a mere
motion, without previous notice, and
adopted, as any other resolution, by a bare
majority of the members present.

Masonic courtesy would, however, dictate
that notice should be given to the Brother,

if absent, that such a motion of censure is
about to be proposed or considered, to
enable him to show cause, if any he have,
why he should not be censured. But such
notice is not, as I have said, necessary to
the legality of the vote of censure.

A vote of censure will sometimes,
however, be the result of a trial, and in that
case its adoption must be governed by the
rules of masonic trials, which are hereafter
to be laid down.

Section II.

Of Reprimand.

A reprimand is the next mildest form of
masonic punishment. It should never be
adopted on a mere motion, but should
always be the result of a regular trial, in
which the party may have the opportunity
of defense.

A reprimand may be either private or
public. If to be given in private, none
should be present but the Master and the
offender; or, if given by letter, no copy of
that letter should be preserved.

If given in public, the lodge is the proper
place, and the reprimand should be given
by the Master from his appropriate station.

The Master is always the executive officer
of the lodge, and in carrying out the
sentence he must exercise his own
prudent discretion as to the mode of
delivery and form of words.

A reprimand, whether private or public,
does not affect the masonic standing of the
offender.

Section III.

Of Exclusion from the Lodge.

Exclusion from a lodge may be of various
degrees.

1 . A member may for indecorous or
unmasonic conduct be excluded from a
single meeting of the lodge. This may be
done by the Master, under a provision of
the bye-laws giving him the authority, or
on his own responsibility, in which case he
is amenable to the Grand Lodge for the
correctness of his decision. Exclusion in
this way does not affect the masonic
standing of the person excluded, and does
not require a previous trial.

I cannot entertain any doubt that the
Master of a lodge has the right to exclude

temporarily any member or Mason, when
he thinks that either his admission, if
outside, or his continuance within, if
present, will impair the peace and
harmony of the lodge. It is a prerogative
necessary to the faithful performance of his
duties, and inalienable from his great
responsibility to the Grand Lodge for the
proper government of the Craft intrusted
to his care. If, as it is described in the
ancient manner of constituting a lodge, the
Master is charged "to preserve the cement
of the Lodge," it would be folly to give him
such a charge, unless he were invested
with the power to exclude an unruly or
disorderly member. But as Masters are
enjoined not to rule their lodges in an
unjust or arbitrary manner, and as every
Mason is clearly entitled to redress for any
wrong that has been done to him, it follows
that the Master is responsible to the Grand
Lodge for the manner in which he has

executed the vast power intrusted to him,
and he may be tried and punished by that
body, for excluding a member, when the
motives of the act and the other
circumstances of the exclusion were not
such as to warrant the exercise of his
prerogative.

2. A member may be excluded from his
lodge for a definite or indefinite period, on
account of the non-payment of arrears.
This punishment may be inflicted in
different modes, and under different
names. It is sometimes called, _suspension
from the lodge, _ and sometimes _erasure
from the roll_. Both of these punishments,
though differing in their effect, are
pronounced, not after a trial, but by a
provision of the bye-laws of the lodge. For
this reason alone, if there were no other, I
should contend, that they do not affect the
standing of the member suspended, or

erased, with relation to the craft in
general. No Mason can be deprived of his
masonic rights, except after a trial, with
the opportunity of defense, and a verdict
of his peers.

But before coming to a definite conclusion
on this subject, it is necessary that we
should view the subject in another point of
view, in which it will be seen that a
suspension from the rights and benefits of
Masonry, for the non-payment of dues, is
entirely at variance with the true principles
of the Order.

The system of payment of lodge-dues does
not by any means belong to the ancient
usages of the fraternity. It is a modern
custom, established for purposes of
convenience, and arising out of other
modifications, in the organization of the
Order. It is not an obligation on the part of

a Mason, to the institution at large, but is in
reality a special contract, in which the only
parties are a particular lodge and its
members, of which the fraternity, as a
mass, are to know nothing. It is not
presented by any general masonic law,
nor any universal masonic precept. No
Grand Lodge has ever yet attempted to
control or regulate it, and it is thus tacitly
admitted to form no part of the general
regulations of the Order. Even in that Old
Charge in which a lodge is described, and
the necessity of membership in is
enforced, not a word is said of the payment
of arrears to it, or of the duty of
contributing to its support. Hence the
non-payment of arrears is a violation of a
special and voluntary contract with a
lodge, and not of any general duty to the
craft at large. The corollary from all this is,
evidently, that the punishment inflicted in
such a case should be one affecting the

relations of the delinquent with the
particular lodge whose bye-laws he has
infringed, and not a general one, affecting
his relations with the whole Order. After a
consideration of all these circumstances, I
am constrained to think that suspension
from alodge, for non-payment of arrears,
should only suspend the rights of the
member as to his own lodge, but should
not affect his right of visiting other lodges,
nor any of the other privileges inherent in
him as a Mason. Such is not, I confess, the
general opinion, or usage of the craft in
this country, but yet I cannot but believe
that it is the doctrine most consonant with
the true spirit of the institution. It is the
practice pursued by the Grand Lodge of
England, from which most of our Grand
Lodges derive, directly or indirectly, their
existence. It is also the regulation of the
Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. The Grand
Lodge of South Carolina expressly forbids

suspension from the rights and benefits of
Masonry for non-payment of dues, and the
Grand Lodge of New York has a similar
provision in its Constitution.

Of the two modes of exclusion from a
lodge for non-payment of dues, namely,
suspension and erasure, the effects are
very different. Suspension does not
abrogate the connection between the
member and his lodge, and places his
rights in abeyance only. Upon the payment
of the debt, he is at once restored without
other action of the lodge. But erasure from
the roll terminates all connection between
the delinquent and the lodge, and he
ceases to be a member of it. Payment of
the dues, simply, will not restore him; for it
is necessary that he should again be
elected by the Brethren, upon formal
application.

The word exclusion has a meaning in
England differing from that in which it has
been used in the present section. There
the prerogative of expulsion is, as I think
very rightly, exercised only by the Grand
Lodge. The term "expelled" is therefore
used only when a Brother is removed from
the craft, by the Grand Lodge. The
removal by a District Grand Lodge, or a
subordinate lodge, is called "exclusion."
The effect, however, of the punishment of
exclusion, is similar to that which has been
here advocated.

Section IV.

Of Definite Suspension.

Suspension is a punishment by which a
party is temporarily deprived of his rights
and privileges as a Mason. It does not
terminate his connection with the craft, but
only places it in abeyance, and it may
again be resumed in a mode hereafter to
be indicated.

Suspension may be, in relation to time,
either definite or indefinite. And as the
effects produced upon the delinquent,
especially in reference to the manner of
his restoration, are different, it is proper
that each should be separately
considered.

In a case of definite suspension, the time

for which the delinquent is to be
suspended, whether for one month, for
three, or six months, or for a longer or
shorter period, is always mentioned in the
sentence.

At its termination, the party suspended is
at once restored without further action of
the lodge. But as this is a point upon which
there has been some difference of opinion,
the argument will be fully discussed in the
chapter on the subject of _Restoration._

By a definite suspension, the delinquent is
for a time placed beyond the pale of
Masonry. He is deprived of all his rights as
a Master Mason--is not permitted to visit
any lodge, or hold masonic communication
with his Brethren— is not entitled to
masonic relief, and should he die during
his suspension, is not entitled to masonic
burial. In short, the amount of punishment

differs from that of indefinite suspension or
expulsion only in the period of time for
which it is inflicted.

The punishment of definite suspension is
the lightest that can be inflicted of those
which affect the relations of a Mason with

the fraternity at large. It must always be
preceded by a trial, and the prevalent
opinion is, that it may be inflicted by a

two-thirds vote

of the lodge.

Section V.

Of Indefinite Suspension.

Indefinite suspension is a punishment by
which the person suspended is deprived
of all his rights and privileges as a Mason,
until such time as the lodge which has
suspended him shall see fit, by a special
action, to restore him.

All that has been said of definite
suspension in the preceding section, will
equally apply to indefinite suspension,
except that in the former case the
suspended person is at once restored by
the termination of the period for which he
was suspended; while in the latter, as no
period of termination had been affixed, a
special resolution of the lodge will be
necessary to effect a restoration.

By suspension the connection of the party
with his lodge and with the institution is not
severed; he still remains a member of his
lodge, although his rights as such are
placed in abeyance. In this respect it
materially differs from expulsion, and, as
an inferior grade of punishment, is
inflicted for offenses of a lighter character
than those for which expulsion is
prescribed.

The question here arises, whether the dues
of a suspended member to his lodge
continue to accrue during his suspension? I
think they do not. Dues or arrears are
payments made to a lodge for certain
rights and benefits— the exercise and
enjoyment of which are guaranteed to the
member, in consideration of the dues thus
paid. But as by suspension, whether
definite or indefinite, he is for the time

deprived of these rights and benefits, it
would seem unjust to require from him a
payment for that which he does not enjoy. I
hold, therefore, that suspension from the
rights and benefits of Masonry, includes
also a suspension from the payment of
arrears.

No one can be indefinitely suspended,
unless after a due form of trial, and upon
the vote of at least two-thirds of the
members present.

Section VI.

Of Expulsion._[98]

Expulsion is the very highest penalty that
can be inflicted upon a delinquent Mason.
It deprives the party expelled of all the
masonic rights and privileges that he ever
enjoyed, not only as a member of the
lodge from which he has been ejected, but
also of all those which were inherent in
him as a member of the fraternity at large.
He is at once as completely divested of his
masonic character as though he had never
been admitted into the institution. He can
no longer demand the aid of his Brethren,
nor require from them the performance of
any of the duties to which he was formerly
entitled, nor visit any lodge, nor unite in
any of the public or private ceremonies of
the Order. No conversation on masonic

subjects can be held with him, and he is to
be considered as being completely
without the pale of the institution, and to be
looked upon in the same light as a profane,
in relation to the communication of any
masonic information.

It is a custom too generally adopted in this
country, for subordinate lodges to inflict
this punishment, and hence it is supposed
by many, that the power of inflicting it is
vested in the subordinate lodges. But the
fact is, that the only proper tribunal to
impose this heavy penalty is a Grand
Lodge. A subordinate may, indeed, try its
delinquent member, and if guilty declare
him expelled. But the sentence is of no
force until the Grand Lodge, under whose
jurisdiction it is working, has confirmed it.
And it is optional with the Grand Lodge to
do so, or, as is frequently done, to reverse
the decision and reinstate the Brother.

Some of the lodges in this country claim
the right to expel independently of the
action of the Grand Lodge, but the claim is
not valid. The very fact that an expulsion is
a penalty, affecting the general relations of
the punished party with the whole
fraternity, proves that its exercise never
could, with propriety, be intrusted to a
body so circumscribed in its authority as a
subordinate lodge. Besides, the general
practice of the fraternity is against it. The
English Constitutions vest the power to
expel exclusively in the Grand Lodge. [99]

The severity of the punishment will at once
indicate the propriety of inflicting it only
for the most serious offenses, such, for
instance, as immoral conduct, that would
subject a candidate for initiation to
rejection.

As the punishment is general, affecting the

relation of the one expelled with the whole
fraternity, it should not be lightly imposed,
for the violation of any masonic act not
general in its character. The commission of
a grossly immoral act is a violation of the
contract entered into between each Mason
and his Order. If sanctioned by silence or
impunity, it would bring discredit on the
institution, and tend to impair its
usefulness. A Mason who is a bad man, is
to the fraternity what a mortified limb is to
the body, and should be treated with the
same mode of cure— he should be cut off,
lest his example spread, and disease be
propagated through the constitution.

The punishment of expulsion can only be
inflicted after a due course of trial, and
upon the votes of at least two-thirds of the
members present, and should always be
submitted for approval and confirmation to
the Grand Lodcre.

One question here arises, in respect not
only to expulsion but to the other masonic
punishments, of which I have treated in the
preceding sections:— Does suspension or
expulsion from a Chapter of Royal Arch
Masons, an Encampment of Knights
Templar, or any other of what are called
the higher degrees of Masonry, affect the
relations of the expelled party to Symbolic
or Ancient Craft Masonry? I answer,
unhesitatingly, that it does not, and for
reasons which, years ago, I advanced, in
the following language, and which appear
to have met with the approval of the most
of my contemporaries

"A chapter of Royal Arch Masons, for
instance, is not, and cannot be, recognized
as a masonic body, by a lodge of Master
Masons. 'They hear them so to be, but they
do not know them so to be,’ by any of the

modes of recognition known to Masonry.
The acts, therefore, of a Chapter cannot be
recognized by a Master Masons' lodge,
any more than the acts of a literary or
charitable society wholly unconnected
with the Order. Again: By the present
organization of Freemasonry, Grand
Lodges are the supreme masonic
tribunals. If, therefore, expulsion from a
Chapter of Royal Arch Masons involved
expulsion from a Blue Lodge, the right of
the Grand Lodge to hear and determine
causes, and to regulate the internal
concerns of the institution, would be
interfered with by another body beyond
its control. But the converse of this
proposition does not hold good. Expulsion
from a Blue Lodge involves expulsion from
all the higher degrees; because, as they
are composed of Blue Masons, the
members could not of right sit and hold
communications on masonic subjects with

one who was an expelled Mason."[100]

Chapter III.

Of Masonic

Trials.

Having thus discussed the penalties which
are affixed to masonic offenses, we are
next to inquire into the process of trial by
which a lodge determines on the guilt or
innocence of the accused. This subject will
be the most conveniently considered by a
division into two sections; first, as to the
form of trial; and secondly, as to the
character of the evidence.

Section I.

Of the Form of Trial.

Although the authority for submitting
masonic offenses to trials by lodges is
derived from the Old Charges, none of the
ancient regulations of the Order have
prescribed the details by which these
trials are to be governed. The form of trial
must, therefore, be obtained from the
customs and usages of the craft, and from
the regulations which have been adopted
by various Grand Lodges. The present
section will, therefore, furnish a summary
of these regulations as they are generally
observed in this country.

A charge or statement of the offense
imputed to the party is always a
preliminary step to every trial.

This charge must be made in writing,
signed by the accuser, and delivered to
the Secretary, who reads it at the next
regular communication of the lodge. A
time and place are then appointed by the
lodge for the trial.

The accused is entitled to a copy of the
charge, and must be informed of the time
and place that have been appointed for his
trial.

Although it is necessary that the accusation
should be preferred at a stated
communication, so that no one may be
taken at a disadvantage, the trial may take
place at a special communication. But
ample time and opportunity should always
be given to the accused to prepare his
defense.

It is not essential that the accuser should
be a Mason. A charge of immoral conduct
can be preferred by a profane; and if the
offense is properly stated, and if it comes
within the jurisdiction of the Order or the
lodge, it must be investigated. It is not the
accuser but the accused that Is to be put on
trial, and the lodge is to look only to the
nature of the accusation, and not to the
individual who prefers it. The motives of
the accuser, but not his character, may be
examined.

If the accused is living beyond the
jurisdiction of the lodge—that is to say, if he
be a member and have removed to some
other place without withdrawing his
membership, not being a member, or if,
after committing the offense, he has left the
jurisdiction, the charge must be
transmitted to his present place of
residence, by mail or otherwise, and a

reasonable time be allowed for his answer
before the lodge proceeds to trial.

The lodge should be opened in the highest
degree to which the accused has attained;
and the examinations should take place in
the presence of the accused and the
accuser (if the latter be a Mason); but the
final decision should always be made in
the third degree.

The accused and the accuser have a right
to be present at all examinations of
witnesses, whether those examinations are
taken in open lodge or in a committee, and
to propose such relevant questions as they
desire.

When the trial is concluded, the accused
and accuser should retire, and the Master
or presiding officer must then put the
question of guilty or not guilty to the

lodge. Of course, if there are several
charges or specifications, the question
must be taken on each separately. For the
purposes of security and independence in
the expression of opinion, it seems
generally conceded, that this question
should be decided by ballot; and the
usage has also obtained, of requiring
two-thirds of the votes given to be black,
to secure a conviction. A white ball, of
course, is equivalent to acquittal, and a
black one to conviction.

Every member present is bound to vote,
unless excused by unanimous consent.

If, on a scrutiny, it is found that the verdict
is guilty, the Master or presiding officer
must then put the question as to the amount
and nature of the punishment to be
inflicted.

He will commence with the highest
penalty, or expulsion, and, if necessary, by
that punishment being negatived, proceed
to propose indefinite and then definite
suspension, exclusion, public or private
reprimand, and censure.

For expulsion or either kind of suspension,
two-thirds of the votes present are
necessary. For either of the other and
lighter penalties, a bare majority will be
sufficient.

The votes on the nature of the punishment
should be taken by a show of hands.

If the residence of the accused is not
known, or if, upon due summons, he
refuses or neglects to attend, the lodge
may, nevertheless, proceed to trial without
his presence.

In trials conducted by Grand Lodges, it is
usual to take the preliminary testimony in a
committee; but the final decision must
always be made in the Grand Lodge.

Section II.

_Of the Evidence in Masonic Trials. _

In the consideration of the nature of the
evidence that is to be given in masonic
trials, it is proper that we should first
inquire what classes of persons are to be
deemed incompetent as witnesses.

The law of the land, which, in this instance,
is the same as the law of Masonry, has
declared the following classes of person to
be incompetent to give evidence.

1 . Persons who have not the use of reason,
are, from the infirmity of their nature,
considered to be utterly incapable of
giving evidence. [101] This class includes
idiots, madmen, and children too young to
be sensible of the obligations of an oath,

and to distinguish between good and evil.

2. Persons who are entirely devoid of any
such religious principle or belief as would
bind their consciences to speak the truth,
are incompetent as witnesses. Hence, the
testimony of an atheist must be rejected;
because, as it has been well said, such a
person cannot be subject to that sanction
which is deemed an indispensable test of
truth. But as Masonry does not demand of
its candidates any other religious
declaration than that of a belief in God, it
cannot require of the witnesses in its trials
any profession of a more explicit faith. But
even here it seems to concur with the law
of the land; for it has been decided by
Chief Baron Willes, that "an infidel who
believes in a God, and that He will reward
and punish him in this world, but does not
believe in a future state, may be examined
upon oath."

3. Persons who have been rendered
infamous by their conviction of great
crimes, are deemed incompetent to give
evidence. This rule has been adopted,
because the commission of an infamous
crime implies, as Sir William Scott has
observed, "such a dereliction of moral
principle on the part of the witness, as
carries with it the conclusion that he would
entirely disregard the obligation of an
oath." Of such a witness it has been said,
by another eminent judge, [102] that "the
credit of his oath is over-balanced by the
stain of his iniquity."

4. Persons interested in the result of the
trial are considered incompetent to give
evidence. From the nature of human
actions and passions, and from the fact that
all persons, even the most virtuous, are
unconsciously swayed by motives of

interest, the testimony of such persons is
rather to be distrusted than believed. This
rule will, perhaps, be generally of difficult
application in masonic trials, although in a
civil suit at law it is easy to define what is
the interest of a party sufficient to render
his evidence incompetent. But whenever it
is clearly apparent that the interests of a
witness would be greatly benefited by
either the acquittal or the conviction of the
accused, his testimony must be entirely
rejected, or, if admitted, its value must be
weighed with the most scrupulous caution.

Such are the rules that the wisdom of
successive generations of men, learned in
the law, have adopted for the
establishment of the competency or
incompetency of witnesses. There is
nothing in them which conflicts with the
principles of justice, or with the
Constitutions of Freemasonry; and hence

they may, very properly, be considered as
a part of our own code. In determining,
therefore, the rule for the admission of
witnesses in masonic trials, we are to be
governed by the simple proposition that
has been enunciated by Mr. Justice
Lawrence in the following language:

"I find no rule less comprehensive than
this, that all persons are admissible
witnesses who have the use of their
reason, and such religious belief as to feel
the obligation of an oath, who have not
been convicted of any infamous crime, and
who are not influenced by interest."

The peculiar, isolated character of our
institution, here suggests as an important
question, whether it is admissible to take
the testimony of a profane, or person who
is not a Freemason, in the trial of a Mason
before his lodcre.

To this question I feel compelled to reply,
that such testimony is generally
admissible; but, as there are special cases
in which it is not, it seems proper to qualify
that reply by a brief inquiry into the
grounds and reasons of this admissibility,
and the mode and manner in which such
testimony is to be taken.

The great object of every trial, in Masonry,
as elsewhere, is to elicit truth; and, in the
spirit of truth, to administer justice. From
whatever source, therefore, this truth can
be obtained, it is not only competent there
to seek it, but it is obligatory on us so to
do. This is the principle of law as well as of
common sense. Mr. Phillips, in the
beginning of his great "Treatise on the Law
of Evidence," says: "In inquiries upon this
subject, the great end and object ought
always to be, the ascertaining of the most

convenient and surest means for the
attainment of truth; the rules laid down are
the means used for the attainment of that
end."

Now, if A, who is a Freemason, shall have
committed an offense, of which B and C
alone were cognizant as witnesses, shall it
be said that A must be acquitted for want
of proof, because B and C are not
members of the Order? We apprehend
that in this instance the ends of justice
would be defeated, rather than subserved.
If the veracity and honesty of B and C are
unimpeached, their testimony as to the fact
cannot lawfully be rejected on any ground,
except that they may be interested in the
result of the trial, and might be benefited
by the conviction or the acquittal of the
defendant. But this is an objection that
would hold against the evidence of a
Mason, as well as a profane.

Any other rule would be often attended
with injurious consequences to our
institution. We may readily suppose a case
by way of illustration. A, who is a member
of a lodge, is accused of habitual
intemperance, a vice eminently unmasonic
in its character, and one which will always
reflect a great portion of the degradation
of the offender upon the society which
shall sustain and defend him in its
perpetration. But it may happen— and this
is a very conceivable case— that in
consequence of the remoteness of his
dwelling, or from some other supposable
cause, his Brethren have no opportunity of
seeing him, except at distant intervals.
There is, therefore, no Mason, to testify to
the truth of the charge, while his neighbors
and associates, who are daily and hourly in
his company, are all aware of his habit of
intoxication.

If, then, a dozen or more men, all of
reputation and veracity, should come, or
be brought before the lodge, ready and
willing to testify to this fact, by what
process of reason or justice, or under what
maxim of masonic jurisprudence, could
their testimony be rejected, simply
because they were not Masons? And if
rejected— if the accused with this weight of
evidence against him, with this infamy
clearly and satisfactorily proved by these
reputable witnesses, were to be acquitted,
and sent forth purged of the charge, upon
a mere technical ground, and thus
triumphantly be sustained in the
continuation of his vice, and that in the face
of the very community which was
cognizant of his degradation of life and
manners, who could estimate the
disastrous consequences to the lodge and
the Order which should thus support and

uphold him in his guilty course? The world
would not, and could not appreciate the
causes that led to the rejection of such
clear and unimpeachable testimony, and it
would visit with its just reprobation the
institution which could thus extend its
fraternal affections to the support of
undoubted guilt.

But, moreover, this is not a question of
mere theory; the principle of accepting the
testimony of non-masonic witnesses has
been repeatedly acted on. If a Mason has
been tried by the courts of his country on
an indictment for larceny, or any other
infamous crime, and been convicted by
the verdict of a jury, although neither the
judge nor the jury, nor the witnesses were
Masons, no lodge after such conviction
would permit him to retain his
membership, but, on the contrary, it would
promptly and indignantly expel him from

the Brotherhood. If, however, the lodge
should refuse to expel him, on the ground
that his conviction before the court was
based on the testimony of non-masonic
witnesses, and should grant him a lodge
trial for the same offense, then, on the
principle against which we are
contending, the evidence of these
witnesses as "profanes" would be rejected,
and the party be acquitted for want of
proof; and thus the anomalous and
disgraceful spectacle would present
itself— of a felon condemned and punished
by the laws of his country for an infamous
crime, acquitted and sustained by a lodge
of Freemasons.

But we will be impressed with the
inexpediency and injustice of this
principle, when we look at its operation
from another point of view. It is said to be a
bad rule that will not work both ways; and,

therefore, if the testimony of non-masonic
witnesses against the accused is rejected
on the ground of inadmissibility, it must
also be rejected when given in his favor.
Now, if we suppose a case, in which a
Mason was accused before his lodge of
having committed an offense, at a certain
time and place, and, by the testimony of
one or two disinterested persons, he could
establish what the law calls an _alibi_, that
is, that at that very time he was at a
far-distant place, and could not, therefore,
have committed the offense charged
against him, we ask with what show of
justice or reason could such testimony be
rejected, simply because the parties
giving it were not Masons? But if the
evidence of a "profane" is admitted in
favor of the accused, rebutting testimony
of the same kind cannot with consistency
be rejected; and hence the rule is
determined that in the trial of Masons, it is

competent to receive the evidence of
persons who are not Masons, but whose
competency, in other respects, is not
denied.

It must, however, be noted, that the
testimony of persons who are not Masons
is not to be given as that of Masons is,
within the precincts of the lodge. They are
not to be present at the trial; and whatever
testimony they have to adduce, must be
taken by a committee, to be afterwards
accurately reported to the lodge. But in all
cases, the accused has a right to be
present, and to interrogate the witnesses.

The only remaining topic to be discussed
is the method of taking the testimony, and
this can be easily disposed of.

The testimony of Masons is to be taken
either in lodge or in committee, and under

the sanction of their obligations.

The testimony of profanes is always to be
taken by a committee, and on oath
administered by a competent legal
officer— the most convenient way of taking
such testimony is by affidavit.

Chapter IV.

Of the Penal Jurisdiction of a Lodge.

The penal jurisdiction of a lodge is that
jurisdiction which it is authorized to
exercise for the trial of masonic offenses,
and the infliction of masonic punishment. It
may be considered as either geographical
or personal.

The geographical jurisdiction of a lodge
extends in every direction, half way to the
nearest lodge. Thus, if two lodges be
situated at the distance of sixteen miles
from each other, then the penal
jurisdiction of each will extend for the
space of eight miles in the direction of the
other.

The personal jurisdiction of a lodge is that
jurisdiction which a lodge may exercise
over certain individuals, respective or
irrespective of geographical jurisdiction.
This jurisdiction is more complicated than
the other, and requires a more detailed

enumeration of the classes over whom it is
to be exercised.

1. A lodge exercises penal jurisdiction
over all its members, no matter where they
may reside. A removal from the
geographical jurisdiction will not, in this
case, release the individual from personal
jurisdiction. The allegiance of a member to
his lodge is indefeasible.

2. A lodge exercises penal jurisdiction
over all unaffiliated Masons, living within
its geographical jurisdiction. An
unaffiliated Mason cannot release himself
from his responsibilities to the Order. And
if, by immoral or disgraceful conduct, he
violates the regulations of the Order, or
tends to injure its reputation in the
estimation of the community, he is
amenable to the lodge nearest to his place
of residence, whether this residence be

temporary or permanent, and may be
reprimanded, suspended, or expelled.

This doctrine is founded on the wholesome
reason, that as a lodge is the guardian of
the purity and safety of the institution,
within its own jurisdiction, it must, to
exercise this guardianship with success,
be invested with the power of correcting
every evil that occurs within its precincts.
And if unaffiliated Masons were exempted
from this control, the institution might be
seriously affected in the eyes of the
community, by their bad conduct.

3. The personal jurisdiction of a lodge, for
the same good reason, extends over all
Masons living in its vicinity. A Master
Mason belonging to a distant lodge, but
residing within the geographical
jurisdiction of another lodge, becomes
amenable for his conduct to the latter, as

well as to the former lodge. But if his own
lodge is within a reasonable distance,
courtesy requires that the lodge near
which he resides should rather make a
complaint to his lodge than itself institute
proceedings against him. But the
reputation of the Order must not be
permitted to be endangered, and a case
might occur, in which it would be
inexpedient to extend this courtesy, and
where the lodge would feel compelled to
proceed to the trial and punishment of the
offender, without appealing to his lodge.
The geographical jurisdiction will, in all
cases, legalize the proceedings.

4. But a lodge situated near the confines of
a State cannot extend its jurisdiction over
Masons residing in a neighboring State,
and not being its members, however near
they may reside to it: for no lodge can
exercise jurisdiction over the members of

another Grand Lodge jurisdiction. Its

geographical,

well

personal

jurisdiction, can extend no further than that
of its own Grand Lodge.

5. Lastly, no lodge can exercise penal
jurisdiction over its own Master, for he is
alone responsible for his conduct to the
Grand Lodge. But it may act as his accuser
before that body, and impeach him for any
offense that he may have committed.
Neither can a lodge exercise penal
jurisdiction over the Grand Master,
although under other circumstances it
might have both geographical and
personal jurisdiction over him, from his

membership.

residence

and

Chapter V.

Appeals.

Every Mason, who has been tried and
convicted by a lodge, has an inalienable
right to appeal from that conviction, and
from the sentence accompanying it, to the
Grand Lodge.

As an appeal always supposes the
necessity of a review of the whole case, the
lodge is bound to furnish the Grand Lodge
with an attested copy of its proceedings on
the trial, and such other testimony in its
possession as the appellant may deem
necessary for his defense.

The Grand Lodge may, upon investigation,
confirm the verdict of its subordinate. In
this case, the appeal is dismissed, and the
sentence goes into immediate operation
without any further proceedings on the
part of the lodge.

The Grand Lodge may, however, only

approve in part, and may reduce the
penalty inflicted, as for instance, from
expulsion to suspension. In this case, the
original sentence of the lodge becomes
void, and the milder sentence of the Grand
Lodge is to be put in force. The same
process would take place, were the Grand
Lodge to increase instead of diminishing
the amount of punishment, as from
suspension to expulsion. For it is
competent for the Grand Lodge, on an
appeal, to augment, reduce or wholly
abrogate the penalty inflicted by its
subordinate.

But the Grand Lodge may take no direct
action on the penalty inflicted, but may
simply refer the case back to the
subordinate for a new trial. In this case, the
proceedings on the trial will be
commenced _de novo_, if the reference
has been made on the ground of any

informality or illegality in the previous
trial. But if the case is referred back, not
for a new trial, but for further
consideration, on the ground that the
punishment was inadequate— either too
severe, or not sufficiently so— in this case,
it is not necessary to repeat the trial. The
discussion on the nature of the penalty to
be inflicted should, however, be reviewed,
and any new evidence calculated to throw
light on the nature of the punishment
which is most appropriate, may be
received.

Lastly, the Grand Lodge may entirely
reverse the decision of its subordinate,
and decree a restoration of the appellant
to all his rights and privileges, on the
ground of his innocence of the charges
which had been preferred against him.
But, as this action is often highly important
in its results, and places the appellant and

the lodge in an entirely different relative
position, I have deemed its consideration
worthy of a distinct chapter.

During the pendency of an appeal, the
sentence of the subordinate lodge is held
in abeyance, and cannot; be enforced. The
appellant in this case remains in the
position of a Mason "under charges."

Chapter VI.

Restoration.

The penalties of suspension and expulsion
are terminated by restoration, which may
take place either by the action of the lodge
which inflicted them, or by that of the
Grand Lodge.

Restoration from definite suspension is
terminated without any special action of
the lodge, but simply by the termination of
the period for which the party was
suspended. He then at once reenters into
the possession of all the rights, benefits,
and functions, from which he had been
temporarily suspended.

I have myself no doubt of the correctness
of this principle; but, as it has been denied
by some writers, although a very large
majority of the authorities are in its favor, it
may be well, briefly, to discuss its merits.

Let us suppose that on the 1st of January

A.B. had been suspended for three
months, that is, until the 1st day of April. At
the end of the three months, that is to say,
on the first of April, A.B. would no longer
be a suspended member— for the
punishment decreed will have been
endured; and as the sentence of the lodge
had expressly declared that his
suspension was to last until the 1st of April,
the said sentence, if it means anything,
must mean that the suspension was, on the
said 1st of April, to cease and determine. If
he were, therefore, to wait until the 1st of
May for the action of the lodge, declaring
his restoration, he would suffer a
punishment of four months' suspension,
which was not decreed by his lodge upon
his trial, and which would, therefore, be
manifestly unjust and illegal.

Again: if the offense which he had
committed was, upon his trial, found to be

so slight as to demand only a dismissal for
one night from the lodge, will it be
contended that, on his leaving the
lodge-room pursuant to his sentence, he
leaves not to return to it on the succeeding
communication, unless a vote should
permit him? Certainly not. His punishment
of dismissal for one night had been
executed; and on the succeeding night he
reentered into the possession of all his
rights. But if he can do so after a dismissal
or suspension of one night, why not after
one or three, six or twelve months? The
time is extended, but the principle
remains the same.

But the doctrine, that after the expiration of
the term of a definite suspension, an action
by the lodge is still necessary to a
complete restoration, is capable of
producing much mischief and oppression.
For, if the lodge not only has a right, but is

under the necessity of taking up the case
anew, and deciding whether the person
who had been suspended for three
months, and whose period of suspension
has expired, shall now be restored, it
follows, that the members of the lodge, in
the course of their inquiry, are permitted
to come to such conclusion as they may
think just and fit; for to say that they, after
all their deliberations, are, to vote only in
one way, would be too absurd to require
any consideration. They may, therefore,
decide that A.B., having undergone the
sentence of the lodge, shall be restored,
and then of course all would be well, and
no more is to be said. But suppose that
they decide otherwise, and say that A.B.,
having undergone the sentence of
suspension of three months, _shall not_ be
restored, but must remain suspended until
further orders. Here, then, a party would
have been punished a second time for the

same offense, and that, too, after having
suffered what, at the time of his conviction,
was supposed to be a competent
punishment— and without a trial, and
without the necessary opportunities of
defense, again found guilty, and his
comparatively light punishment of
suspension for three months changed into
a severer one, and of an indefinite period.
The annals of the most arbitrary
government in the world— the history of the
most despotic tyrant that ever lived— could
not show an instance of more unprincipled
violation of law and justice than this. And
yet it may naturally be the result of the
doctrine, that in a sentence of definite
suspension, the party can be restored only
by a vote of the lodge at the expiration of
his term of suspension. If the lodge can
restore him, it can as well refuse to restore
him, and to refuse to restore him would be
to inflict a new punishment upon him for an

old and atoned-for offense.

On the 1st of January, for instance, A.B.,
having been put upon his trial, witnesses
having been examined, his defense having
been heard, was found guilty by his lodge
of some offense, the enormity of which,
whatever it might be, seemed to require a
suspension from Masonry for just three
months, neither more nor less. If the lodge
had thought the crime still greater, it
would, of course, we presume, have
decreed a suspension of six, nine, or
twelve months. But considering, after a
fair, impartial, and competent
investigation of the merits of the case (for
all this is to be presumed), that the
offended law would be satisfied with a
suspension of three months, that
punishment is decreed. The court is
adjourned _sine die_; for it has done all
that is required— the prisoner undergoes

his sentence with becoming contrition, and
the time having expired, the bond having
been paid, and the debt satisfied, he is
told that he must again undergo the ordeal
of another trial, before another court,
before he can reassume what was only
taken from him for a definite period; and
that it is still doubtful, whether the
sentence of the former court may not even
now, after its accomplishment, be
reversed, and a new and more severe one
be inflicted.

The analogy of a person who has been
sentenced to imprisonment for a certain
period, and who, on the expiration of that
period, is at once released, has been
referred to, as apposite to the case of a
definite suspension. Still more
appropriately may we refer to the case of a
person transported for a term of years, and
who cannot return until that term expires,

but who is at liberty at once to do so when
it has expired. "Another capital offense
against public justice," says Blackstone, "is
the returning from transportation, or being
seen at large in Great Britain _before the
expiration of the term for which the
offender was sentenced to be
transported." _ Mark these qualifying
words: "before the expiration of the term:"
they include, from the very force of
language, the proposition that it is no
offense to return _after_ the expiration of
the term. And so changing certain words to
meet the change of circumstances, but
leaving the principle unchanged, we may
lay down the law in relation to restorations
from definite suspensions, as follows:

_It is an offense against the masonic code
to claim the privileges of Masonry, or to
attempt to visit a lodge after having been
suspended, before the expiration of the

term for which the offender was
suspended_.

Of course, it is no crime to resume these
privileges after the term has expired; for
surely he must have strange notions of the
powers of language, who supposes that
suspension for three months, and no more,
does not mean, that when the three months
are over the suspension ceases. And, if the
suspension ceases, the person is no longer
suspended; and, if no longer suspended
he is in good standing, and requires no
further action to restore him to good moral
and masonic health.

But it is said that, although originally only
suspended for three months, at the
expiration of that period, his conduct
might continue to be such as to render his
restoration a cause of public reproach.
What is to be done in such a case? It seems

strange that the question should be asked.
The remedy is only too apparent. Let new
charges be preferred, and let a new trial
take place for his derelictions of duty
during the term of his suspension. Then,
the lodge may again suspend him for a still
longer period, or altogether expel him, if it
finds him deserving such punishment. But
in the name of justice, law, and common
sense, do not insiduously and unmanfully
continue a sentence for one and a former
offense, as a punishment for another and a
later one, and that, too, without the due
forms of trial.

Let us, in this case, go again for an analogy
to the laws of the land. Suppose an
offender had been sentenced to an
imprisonment of six months for a larceny,
and that while in prison he had committed
some new crime. When the six months of
his sentence had expired, would the

Sheriff feel justified, or even the Judge who
had sentenced him, in saying: "I will not
release you; you have guilty of another
offense during your incarceration, and
therefore, I shall keep you confined six
months longer?" Certainly not. The Sheriff
or the Judge who should do so
high-handed a measure, would soon find
himself made responsible for the violation
of private rights. But the course to be
pursued would be, to arrest him for the
new offense, give him a fair trial, and, if
convicted again, imprison or otherwise
punish him, according to his new
sentence, or, if acquitted, discharge him.

The same course should be pursued with a
Mason whose conduct during the period of
his suspension has been liable to reproach
or suspicion. Masons have rights as well as
citizens— every one is to be considered
innocent until he is proved guilty— and no

one should suffer punishment, even of the
lightest kind, except after an impartial trial
by his peers.

But the case of an indefinite suspension is
different. Here no particular time has been
appointed for the termination of the
punishment. It may be continued during
life, unless the court which has
pronounced it think proper to give a
determinate period to what was before
indeterminate, and to declare that on such
a day the suspension shall cease, and the
offender be restored. In a case of this kind,
action on the part of the lodge is necessary
to effect a restoration.

Such a sentence being intended to last
indefinitely— that is to say, during the
pleasure of the lodge— may, I conceive, be
reversed at any legal time, and the
individual restored by a mere majority

vote the of lodge. Some authorities think a
vote of two-thirds necessary; but I see no
reason why a lodge may not, in this as in
other cases, reverse its decision by a vote
of a simple majority. The Ancient
Constitutions are completely silent on this
and all its kindred points; and, therefore,
where a Grand Lodge has made no local
regulation on the subject, we must be
guided by the principles of reason and
analogy, both of which direct us to the
conclusion that a lodge may express its
will, in matters unregulated by the
Constitutions, through the vote of a
majority.

But the restoration of an expelled Mason
requires a different action. By expulsion,
as I have already said, all connection with
the Order is completely severed. The
individual expelled ceases to be a Mason,
so far as respects the exercise of any

masonic rights or privileges. His
restoration to the Order is, therefore,
equivalent to the admission of a profane.
Having ceased on his expulsion to be a
member of the lodge which had expelled
him, his restoration would be the
admission of a new member. The expelled
Mason and the uninitiated candidate are to
be placed on the same footing— both are
equally unconnected with the
institution— the one having never been in
it, and the other having been completely
discharged from it.

The rule for the admission of new
members, as laid down in the Thirty-nine
Regulations, seems to me, therefore, to be
applicable in this case; and hence, I
conceive that to reverse a sentence of
expulsion and to restore an expelled
Mason will require as unanimous a vote as
that which is necessary on a ballot for

initiation.

Every action taken by a lodge for
restoration must be done at a stated
communication and after due notice, that if
any member should have good and
sufficient reasons to urge against the
restoration, he may have an opportunity to
present them.

In conclusion, the Grand Lodge may
restore a suspended or expelled Mason,
contrary to the wishes of the lodge.

In such case, if the party has been
suspended only, he, at once, resumes his
place and functions in the lodge, from
which, indeed, he had only been
temporarily dissevered.

But in the case of the restoration of an
expelled Mason to the rights and

privileges of Masonry, by a Grand Lodge,
does such restoration restore him to
membership in his lodge? This question is
an important one, and has very generally
been decided in the negative by the
Grand Lodges of this country. But as I
unfortunately differ from these high
authorities, I cannot refrain, as an apology
for this difference of opinion, from
presenting the considerations which have
led me to the conclusion which I have
adopted. I cannot, it is true, in the face of
the mass of opposing authority, offer this
conclusion as masonic law. But I would fain
hope that the time is not far distant when it
will become so, by the change on the part
of Grand Lodges of the contrary decisions
which they have made.

The general opinion in this country is, that
when a Mason has been expelled by his
lodge, the Grand Lodge may restore him

to the rights and privileges, but cannot
restore him to membership in his lodge.
My own opinion, in contradiction to this, is,
that when a Grand Lodge restores an
expelled Mason, on the ground that the
punishment of expulsion from the rights
and privileges of Masonry was too severe
and disproportioned to the offense, it may
or may not restore him to membership in
his lodge. It might, for instance, refuse to
restore his membership on the ground that
exclusion from his lodge is an appropriate
punishment; but where the decision of the
lodge as to the guilt of the individual is
reversed, and the Grand Lodge declares
him to be innocent, or that the charge
against him has not been proved, then I
hold, that it is compelled by a just regard
to the rights of the expelled member to
restore him not only to the rights and
privileges of Masonry, but also to
membership in his lodge.

I cannot conceive how a Brother, whose
innocence has been declared by the
verdict of his Grand Lodge, can be
deprived of his vested rights as the
member of a particular lodge, without a
violation of the principles of justice. If
guilty, let his expulsion stand; but, if
innocent, let him be placed in the same
position in which he was before the
passage of the unjust sentence of the lodge
which has been reversed.

The whole error, for such I conceive it to
be, in relation to this question of
restoration to membership, arises, I
suppose, from a misapprehension of an
ancient regulation, which says that "no
man can be entered a Brother in any
particular lodge, or admitted a member
thereof, without the unanimous consent of
all the members"— which inherent

privilege is said not to be subject to
dispensation, "lest a turbulent member
should thus be imposed upon them, which
might spoil their harmony, or hinder the
freedom of their communication, or even
break and disperse the Lodge." But it
should be remembered that this regulation
altogether refers to the admission of new
members, and not to the restoration of old
ones~to the granting of a favor which the
candidate solicits, and which the lodge
may or may not, in its own good pleasure,
see fit to confer, and not to the resumption
of a vested and already acquired right,
which, if it be a right, no lodge can
withhold. The practical working of this
system of incomplete restoration, in a by
no means extreme case, will readily show
its absurdity and injustice. A member
having appealed from expulsion by his
lodge to the Grand Lodge, that body
calmly and fairly investigates the case. It

finds that the appellant has been falsely
accused of an offense which he has never
committed; that he has been unfairly tried,
and unjustly convicted. It declares him
innocent— clearly and undoubtedly
innocent, and far freer from any sort of
condemnation than the prejudiced jurors
who convicted him. Under these
circumstances, it becomes obligatory that
the Grand Lodge should restore him to the
place he formerly occupied, and reinvest
him with the rights of which he has been
unjustly despoiled. But that it cannot do. It
may restore him to the privileges of
Masonry in general; but, innocent though
he be, the Grand Lodge, in deference to
the prejudices of his Brethren, must
perpetuate a wrong, and punish this
innocent person by expulsion from his
lodge. I cannot, I dare not, while I
remember the eternal principles of justice,
subscribe to so monstrous an exercise of

wrong— so flagrant an outrage upon private
rights.

Index.

A.

Accused, to what he is entitled Act passed
in the reign of Henry VI. , anno 1 425 "

" " it was never enforced Actual

Past Master, term defined Adjournment, a
term not recognized in Masonry "
motion for, cannot be entertained Affiliated
Masons only, can visit lodges Affiliation,
what it is " mode of " requires
unanimity " Master Masons only
entitled to it " rejected application
for, may be renewed in other lodges "
may be made with more than one lodge
Age, qualifications of candidates as to
Appeal from Grand Master not permitted
" not to be entertained in a lodge "
cannot be taken from the chair "
doctrine of, discussed " from the Master,
must be to the Grand Lodge " every
Mason has a right to one, to the Grand

Lodge " pending one, the sentence is in
abeyance Apprentices, rights of _(see
Entered Apprenticed Arrears,

non-payment of " to lodges, history of
their origin " do not accrue during
suspension Assembly, general-one held in

287 by St. Alban in 926 at

York " " governed the craft for

nearly 800 years " " how

organized Atheist cannot be a Mason
Authorities for masonic law

B.

Balloting for candidates every member
must take a part in it secrecy of,
inviolable must be unanimous Mason
irresponsible for it to the lodge not
disfranchised of it by non-payment of
arrears mode of Balloting in each degree
not actually prescribed in the ancient
constitutions, but implied must be
unanimous Ballot, reconsideration of
motion for, out of order cannot be
granted by dispensation Black ball is the
bulwark of Masonry Brother, a title to be
always used in lodge Burial, masonic, right
of must be requested except for strangers
Master Masons only entitled to it
dispensation for, not usually required
Business, order of may be suspended at
any time by the Master By-laws must be
approved and confirmed by Grand Lodge

c.

Calling from labor to refreshment

Censure,

masonic

punishment

Certificates, masonic Chaplain, Grand
(_see Grand Chaplain_) Charges of
accusation, how to be made Closing lodge
is at the discretion of the Master
Committee of investigation on character of
candidates Committees to be appointed
by the Master Master is chairman of,
when present Communication of a lodge,
how terminated Consecration of a lodge
how performed meaning of Constituting a

lodge, ceremony of

meaning of

»!

ff

Constitutions, how to be altered " Gothic,
adopted in 926, Corn, wine, and oil,
masonic elements of consecration, "
why elements, Crimes, masonic,
definition of,

»!

M

ft

»t

enumeration of

D.

Deacons, " two in each lodge, " are
appointed officers, " not removable by
Master or Senior Warden " Grand _(see
Grand Deacons_) Dedication of a lodge,
how performed " to whom, and why, "
meaning of Definite suspension " "

restoration from Degrees, no candidate
can receive more than two at one
communication Demitting " right of, not
denied until recently, " regulations
concerning " of many at one time may be
refused Deputy Grand Master, duties and
prerogatives of " " office of, not very

ancient " " exercises prerogatives of

Grand Master in his absence "" cannot be
more than one "" originally appointed by
Grand Master Discussions, how to be
conducted in lodge, Dispensation what
and where to be granted "for a lodge "" "

tenure of its duration "" " difference from a
Warrant District Deputy Grand Master, a

modern

invention

Dotage

disqualification of candidates " meaning of
the term Dues to lodges, a modern usage "
non-payment of, does not disqualify from
voting for

candidates

E.

Emergency, rule upon the subject Entered
Apprentice, rights of formerly a member
of his lodge formerly permitted to attend
the Grand Communications may sit in a
lodge of his degree cannot speak or vote
cannot be deprived of his rights without
trial after trial may appeal to the Grand
Lodge Erasure from lodge, a masonic
punishment Evidence in masonic trials
Examination of visitors how to be
conducted Exclusion, a masonic
punishment Executive powers of a Grand
Lodge Expulsion is masonic death
Expulsion, a masonic punishment should
be inflicted by Grand Lodge or with its
approval from higher degrees, its effect
restoration from Extinct lodges, funds of,
revert to the Grand Lodcre

F.

Family distressed, of a Mason, entitled to
relief Fellow Craft, rights of they formerly
constituted the great body of the Fraternity
formerly permitted to speak, but not vote
Finishing candidates of one lodge in
another Fool cannot be a Mason Free, a
candidate must be, at the time of making
Free-born, a Mason must be reason for

the rule Funds of extinct lodges revert to

the

Grand

Lodge

G.

General Assembly. (_See Assembly,
General. _) God, belief in, a qualification of
a candidate Gothic constitutions adopted
in 926 Grand Chaplain, office established
in 1775 duties of Grand Deacons office
more ancient than Oliver supposes duties
of how appointed Grand Lodge held in
1717 mode of organizing one three
lodges necessary to organize one
dormant may be revived if a Grand Officer
remains, all the Craft formerly members
of Masters and Wardens of lodges are
members Grand Officers are also
members Past Masters are not members
by inherent right its powers and
prerogatives may make new regulations
must observe the landmarks Grand
Lodges, historical sketch of are

comparatively modern institutions Grand

Marshal appointed by the Grand Master
duties of Grand Master, duties and
prerogatives of office of has existed since
the origin of Masonry an elective officer
by whom to be installed prerogatives of,
derived from two sources no appeal from
his decision may convene Grand Lodge
when he chooses entitled to two votes
how to be punished may grant

dispensations Grand Master may make
Masons at sight may constitute new
lodges cannot dispense with requisite
forms in making Masons his own lodge
cannot exercise jurisdiction over him
Grand Pursuivant Grand Secretary office
of established in 1723 duties of Grand
Secretary, may appoint an assistant Grand
Stewards " " first mentioned in 1721

" " duties of " " appointed by

Junior Grand Warden Grand Stewards'
Lodge Grand Sword-Bearer " "

duties of " " office of, constituted in

1731 Grand Tiler " " office of, must

have existed from the earliest times " "

must not be a member of the Grand Lodge
" " sometimes appointed, and

sometimes elected Grand Treasurer " "

office of, established in 1724 " "

duties of " " has always been elected

Grand Wardens " " originally

appointed by the Grand Master " "

succeed the Grand Master and Deputy

H.

Heresy not a masonic crime Higher

effect of

expulsion

from

Historical

sketch

I.

Idiot cannot be made a Mason Impostor,
how to be treated in examination
Incompetent witnesses, who they are
Indefinite suspension " "

restoration from Innovations cannot be
made in the body of Masonry Insanity, if
perfectly cured, no disqualification of a
candidate Installation " whence the
term derived " necessary to legal
existence of an officer " of a Master

of a lodge " of the Grand Master
Instruction of representatives, right of, is
vested in a lodge Investigation of
character must be by a committee

Irreligious libertine cannot be a Mason

definition of the term

Judicial powers of a Grand Lodge, Junior
Grand Warden Junior Warden, " "

presides in absence of Master and Senior
Warden, " " does not take the West in
absence of Senior Warden, " " presides
over the craft during refreshment " "

appoints the stewards Jurisdiction of a
lodge " geographical or personal " is
over all its members " " " unaffiliated

Masons in its vicinity " cannot extend
beyond State lines, " none over its Master

K.

Knowledge of reading and
necessary to a

writing

Mason

L.

Labor, calling from, to refreshment
Landmarks, what they are,
legislative "

ritual and

must be observed by the

Grand Lodge Law of Grand Lodges

M

subordinate lodges

ft

individuals Lawful

information, what it is Laws, how to be

interpreted

ft

of Masonry are of two

kinds— written and unwritten

ft

whence derived

f»

derived

f!

f!

written,
unwritten, whence
same as ancient usage
Legislative powers of a Grand Lodge
Libertine, irreligious, cannot be a Mason
meaning of the term Lodge, subordinate
definition of how organized must have
been congregated by some superior
authority Lodge, under dispensation
definition of generally precedes a
warranted lodge how formed cannot

make by-laws

cannot elect officers

cannot install officers cannot elect
members Lodge, warranted its powers
and rights must be consecrated must be
dedicated must be constituted its
officers must be installed ceremony of
installation in its powers are inherent in it
its reserved rights are secured by the
regulations an assembly of the craft in
their primary capacity may select its own
members elects its own officers what
officers of, are elected in England may
install its officers Master of, must be
installed by a past Master may be
represented in the Grand Lodge
representatives of may instruct its
representatives may frame by-laws may
suspend or exclude a member may
declare a member expelled, the sentence
to be approved by the Grand Lodge may
levy annual contributions may select its
name cannot select its number duties of
cannot alter the ritual must elect officers

at a particular time Lodge, warranted,
cannot interfere with business of another

ft

ft

cannot initiate without

ft

tt

cannot confer

lodge

previous notice
more than two degrees on the same
candidate at one time " " cannot

make more than five new Brothers at the

must meet once a
neglecting to meet

" cannot

same time

ft

ft

ft

ft

month

forfeits its warrant

tt

remove from the town, without the consent

of the Grand Lodge

ft

tt

may remove

from one part of the town to another, under

restrictions

tt

officers of

tt

M.

Madmen cannot be Masons Maims, how far
disqualifying candidates " reason for the
rule relating to Mass meeting of the craft
cannot organize a Grand Lodge Master,
Grand. _(See Grand Master_.) Master
Mason, rights of " " becomes a

member by signing the by-laws " "

how this right is forfeited " " may

apply to any lodge for membership " "

to whom subject for discipline " "

may speak and vote on all questions " "

may hold any office to which elected "

" but to serve as Master must have been

a Warden '
Grand Lodge

may appeal to the
may visit any lodge,

after examination Master of a lodge

Warden

must have previously served as
. " " " must see Grand Lodge

regulations enforced " " " must be

installed by a Past Master " " " has
the warrant in charge " " " may call
special meetings of his lodge " " "

may close his lodge at any time " " "

presides over business as well as labor "

" " is supreme in his lodge Master of a

lodge, no appeal from his decision except
to Grand Lodge moral qualifications of
intellectual qualifications of who is to
judge of them is a member of the Grand
Lodge may exclude a member

temporarily Membership, right of
Members of Grand Lodge are Masters and
Wardens with the Grand Officers Minutes,
when to be read how to be amended not
to be read at special communications
formula for keeping Moral law, what it is
a Mason must obey it Motions, when to be
entertained

N.

Name of a lodge to be selected by itself
Non-residents, initiation of Number of a
lodge regulates its precedency of
candidates to be initiated at one
communication

o.

Office, can be vacated only by death,
removal, or expulsion not vacated by
suspension Officers of a Grand Lodge
subordinate lodge warranted lodge
must be installed how to be installed
time of election determined by Grand
Lodge elected annually vacancies in,
how to be supplied cannot resign Order,
rules of whence derived

p.

Parliamentary law not applicable to
Masonry Past Masters rights of not
members of the Grand Lodge by inherent
right may install their successors of two
kinds— actual and virtual may preside in a
lodge eligible to election to the chair
entitled to a seat in the East eligible to be
elected Deputy Grand Master, or Grand
Warden virtual, cannot be present at
installing a Master Penal jurisdiction of a
lodge Perfect youth, meaning of the term
Perfection, physical, why required of a
candidate Petition of candidate must be
read at a regular communication referred
to a committee of three reported on at
next regular communication report on,
cannot be made at a special
communication renewal of, in case of
rejection how to be renewed, if rejected

for advancement to a higher degree if
rejected, how to be renewed Petitioners,
not less than seven to form a lodge what
they must set forth must be

recommended by nearest lodge Political
offenses not cognizable by a lodge
Political qualifications of candidates
Postponed business, when to be called up
Precedency of lodges, regulated by their
numbers Presiding in a lodge, who has the
right of officer, has the prerogatives of
the Master, for the time Previous question,
unknown in Masonry Probation of
candidates for initiation for

advancement Proceedings of a regular
communication cannot be amended at a
special one Profanes, testimony of, how to
be taken in trials Proficiency of candidates
Proficiency of candidates, must be suitable
Punishments, masonic Pursuivant, a title
equivalent to Sword-Bearer

o.

Qualifications of a Master of a lodge of
candidates, moral religious physical
intellectual political, 184 Quarterly
communications of Grand Lodge, ordered
in 1717 Question, how to be taken on a
motion

R.

Reading, a qualification of candidates
Recommendation of nearest lodge,
necessary to form a new one of
candidate, must be by two members
Reconsideration of ballot motion for, is
out of order, cannot be granted by
dispensation Rejected candidate cannot
apply to any other lodge renewed
petition of, when to be made, Relief, right
of claiming it unworthy Masons not
entitled to it Religion of a Mason, what it is
required to be Religious offenses not
cognizable by a lodge Removal of a lodge,
rule on the subject of Representatives of a
lodge, who they are Reprimand, a masonic
punishment Restoration from definite
suspension indefinite supension

expulsion must be at a stated

communication may be by Grand Lodge

requires a unanimous vote to

membership discussed

s.

Secretary, Grand. (_See Grand
Secretary._) of a lodge his duty is a
recording, corresponding, and receiving
officer is a check upon the treasurer
often receives compensation in case of
death, or expulsion, a successor may be
elected but not in case of removal, or
sickness Senior Grand Warden. (_See
Grand War dens. _) Senior Warden
presides in absence of Master may invite
a Past Master to preside presides over the
craft during labor appoints the Junior
Deacon Sentence in trials, how to be
obtained — is in abeyance pending an
appeal Stewards, Grand. (_See Grand
Stewards. _) of a lodge appointed by
Junior Warden duties of not removable
by Junior Warden Stranger, initiation of
Suspension definite indefinite Sword

Bearer, Grand. (_See Grand Sword
Bearer._)

T.

Testimony, how to be taken on masonic
trials Tiler, Grand. (_See Grand Tiler._) of
a lodge office existed from beginning of
the institution no lodge can be without
one must be a worthy Master Mason if a
member, the office does not disfranchise
him when voting, Junior Deacon takes his

place

may be removed for misconduct

Tiler's obligation, form of it Transient
persons, initiation of Treasurer, Grand.
_(See Grand Treasurer_.) " " of a

lodge

ft

»t

duties of

ft

ft

ft

only banker of the lodge
disbursing officer
worldly substance usually selected

ft

is the

is a

a Brother of

ft

ft

in case of death, a successor may be

elected

ft

ft

but not in case of

sickness, or removal Trials, masonic

ft

form of

evidence in

ff

ff

ff

u.

Unaffiliated Masons " " tax

sometimes levied on " " position,

rights, and duties of Unaffiliation, contrary
to the spirit of Masonry " effect of,
on a Mason Unanimity in the ballot
required by the ancient constitutions
Uneducated candidates not forbidden by
positive enactment " " their

admission opposed to the spirit of the
institution

Virtual Past Masters, who they are Visit,
right of " only affiliated Mason entitled

to it " must be preceded by an
examination " requires a certificate to
insure it Visitors, examination of,
described " must take the Tiler's
obligation Voting must always be by a
show of hands Voting in trials, obligatory
on all members present Voucher must be a
competent Mason Vouching for a visitor

w.

Wardens, Grand. (_See Grand Wardens. _)
of a lodge are assistants of the Master
entitled to membership in Grand Lodge
Warden, Senior. (_See Senior Warden._)
Warden, Junior. (_See Junior Warden._)
Warrant of constitution what it is its
difference from a dispensation can be
revoked only by the Grand Lodge confers
powers of installation and succession not
necessary before 1717 cannot be
resigned by a majority of the lodge
Warranted lodges. (_See Lodges,
Warranted. _) Witnesses in masonic trials,
qualifications of definition of incompetent
ones Woman cannot be made a Mason
Writing, a qualification of candidates

Y.

Yeas and nays, calling for, unmasonic
Young man under age cannot be made a
Mason Youth, perfect, meaning of the term

Footnotes

[1] They will be found in Oliver's edition of
Preston, p. 71, note, (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 58),
or in the American edition by Richards,
Appendix i., note 5.

[2] Found in Ol. Preston, n. 3 (p. 162.
U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 134).

[3] In all references to, or citations from,
Anderson's Constitutions, I have used,
unless otherwise stated, the first edition
printed at London in 1723— a fac simile of
which has recently been published by Bro.
John W. Leonard, of New York. I have,
however, in my possession the subsequent
editions of 1738, 1755, and 1767, and have
sometimes collated them together.

[4] The Gothic Constitutions are that code
of laws which was adopted by the General
Assembly at York, in the year 926. They
are no longer extant, but portions of them

have been preserved by Anderson,
Preston, and other writers.

[5] Preston, book iv., sec, 2., p. 132, n.
(U.M.L.,vol. iii.,p. 109).

[6] General Regulations, art. xxxix.

[7] Chancellor Walworth, in his profound
argument on the New York difficulties,
asserted that this fact "does not distinctly
appear, although it is, pretty evident that
all voted."— p. 33. The language of
Anderson does not, however, admit of a
shadow of a doubt. "The Brethren," he
says, "by a majority of hands, elected," &c.

[8] Opinion of Chancellor Walworth upon
the questions connected with the late
masonic difficulties in the State of New
York, p. 37. There is much historical
learning displayed in this little pamphlet.

[9] Preston, p. 131, n., Oliver's Edit.
(U.M.L., vol. iii.,p. 109).

[10] Of the thirty-six Grand Masters who
have presided over the craft in England
since the revival of Masonry in 1717, thirty
have been noblemen, and three princes of
the reigning family.

[11] Article xxxiv.

[12] His most important prerogatives are
inherent or derived from ancient usage.

[13] Proceedings G.L. Maryland, 1849, p.
25.

[14] Art. xxxix.

[15] The word "time" has been interpreted
to mean communication .

[16] And this is not because such past
officer has an inherent right to the
mastership, but because as long as such an
one is present and willing to serve, there
does not exist such an emergency as
would authorize a dispensation of the law.

[17] What further concerns a lodge under
dispensation is referred to a special
chapter in a subsequent part of the work.

[18] It is well known, although it cannot be
quoted as authority, that the Athol
Constitutions expressly acknowledged the
existence of this prerogative. See
Dermott's Ahiman Rezon.

[19] Book of Constitutions, edit. 1767, p.
222 .

[20] Book of Const., p. 233.

[21] Book of Const., p. 313.

[22] Book of Constitutions, p. 319.

[23] Preston, p. 237, ed. 1802, (U.M.L., vol.
iii. , p. 223).

[24] Book of Constitutions, p. 247

[25] The existence of this prerogative is
denied by the Grand Lodges of Missouri,
Tennessee, Louisiana, and Massachusetts,
while it is admitted by those of New York,
Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Wisconsin, Vermont, Mississippi, Ohio,
New Hampshire, Maryland, Indiana, Texas
and Florida; in the last two, however,
subject to limitation.

[26] That is, the one who has longest been
a Freemason.

[27] Book of the Lodge, p. 115 (U.M.L., vol.
i., book 2, p. 78).

[28] It was abolished in New York in 1854.

[29] This is a small chest or coffer,
representing the ark of the covenant, and
containing the three great lights of
Masonry.

[30] "What man is there that hath a new
house and hath not dedicated it? Let him
go and return to his house, lest he die in
the battle and another man dedicate it."
Deut. xx. 5.

[31] De Syned. Vet. EbrDr., 1. iii., c. xiv., □

1 .

[32] Cicero, Brut. i.

[33] See such a form of Dispensation in
Cole's Masonic Library, p. 91.

[34] Preston, Append., n. 4 (U.M.L., vol.
iii.,pp. 150, 151).

[35] Book of Constitutions, orig. ed, p., 70
(U.M.L., vol. xv., book 1, p. 70).

[36] General Regulations of 1722. A
subsequent regulation permitted the
election of a candidate, if there were not
more than three black balls against him,
provided the lodge desired such a
relaxation of the rule. The lodges of this
country, however, very generally, and, as I
think, with propriety, require unanimity.
The subject will be hereafter discussed.

[37] Every lodge shall annually elect its
Master and Treasurer by ballot. Such
Master having been regularly appointed

and having served as Warden of a
warranted lodge for one year.
-Constitutions of the Ancient Fraternity of
Free and Accepted Masons, published by
authority of the United Grand Lodge of
England-, 1847, _p_. 58 (U.M.L., vol. ix.,
book 1).

[38] The Wardens, or officers, of a lodge
cannot be removed, unless for a cause
which appears to the lodge to be sufficient;
but the Master, if he be dissatisfied with
the conduct of any of his officers, may lay
the cause of complaint before the lodge;
and, if it shall appear to the majority of the
Brethren present that the complaint be
well founded, he shall have power to
displace such officer, and to nominate
another. -English Constitutions, as above,
p._ 80 (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).

[39] It is not necessary that he should be a

Past Master of the lodge.

[40] No master shall assume the Master's
chair, until he shall have been regularly
installed, though he may in the interim rule
the lodge. _English Constitutions_ (U.M.L.,
vol. ix., book 1).

[41] Every Warranted Lodge is a
constituent part of the Grand Lodge, in
which assembly all the power of the
fraternity resides. _English Constitutions,
p_. 70 (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).

[42] We shall not here discuss the question
whether Past Masters are members of the
Grand Lodge, by inherent right, as that
subject will be more appropriately
investigated when we come to speak of the
Law of Grand Lodges, in a future chapter.
They are, however clearly, not the
representatives of their lodge.

[43] Preston, p. 167 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p.
151).

[44] General Regulations. Of the duty of
members, Art. X, (U.M.L., vol. xv., book 1,

p. 61).

[45] English Constitutions, p. 59 (U.M.L.,
vol. ix., book 1).

[46] In selecting the name, the modern
Constitutions of England make the
approbation of the Grand Master or
Provincial Grand Master necessary.

[47] Such is the doctrine of the modern
English Constitutions.

[48] "No Brother can be a Warden until he
has passed the part of a Fellow Craft; nor a
Master until he has acted as a

Warden."— _01d Charges., IV. (U.M.L., vol.
xv., book 1, p. 52).

[49] Regulations on Installation of a Master,
No. III. Preston, p. 74 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p.
61).

[50] Hats, quoted in Jefferson, p. 14.

[51] One of the ancient charges, which
Preston tells us that it was the constant
practice of our Ancient Brethren to
rehearse at the opening and closing of the
lodge, seems to refer to this rule, when it
says, "the Master, Wardens, and Brethren
are just and faithful, and .carefully finish
the work they begin.."— Oliver's Preston,
p. 27, .note. (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 22).

[52] Proceedings of G.L. of Tennessee,
1850. Appendix A, p. 8.

[53] Book of Constitutions, edition of 1755,

p. 282.

[54] If it is an extra communication, this
item of the transaction is, of course,
omitted, for minutes are only to be
confirmed at regular communications.

[55] Oliver's Preston, p. 163, note (U.M.L.,
vol. iii., p. 135).

[56] Such is the provision in the modern
constitutions of England, but the 4th of the
39 Regulations required the candidate to
be at least twenty-five.

[57] See these regulations in Preston, p.
162, Oliver's ed. (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 135).

[58] Oliver's Preston, p. 72, (U.M.L., vol.
iii., p. 59).

[59] Blackstone, Com. I., Introd., D2.

[60] In an able report on this subject, in the
proceedings of the Grand Lodge of
Georgia for 1852. In accordance with the
views there expressed, Bro. Rockwell
decided officially, as District Deputy
Grand Master, in 1851, that a man who had
lost one eye was not admissible.

[61] Potter, 184.

[62] Page 18. In December, 1851, the
Committee of Correspondence of North
Carolina, unregardful of the rigid rule of
their predecessors, decided that maimed
candidates might be initiated, "provided
their loss or infirmity will not prevent them
from making full proficiency in Masonry."

[63] Proceedings of the G.L. of Mo. for
1823, p. 5. The report and resolution were

on the petitions of two candidates to be
initiated, one with only one arm, and the
other much deformed in his legs.

[64] When the spirit of expediency once
begins, we know not where it will stop.
Thus a blind man has been initiated in
Mississippi, and a one-armed one in
Kentucky; and in France a few years since,
the degrees were conferred by
sign-language on a deaf mute!

[65] Namely, the incorrectly presumed
operative origin of the Order. The whole of
this report, which is from the venerable
Giles F. Yates, contains an able and
unanswerable defense of the ancient law in
opposition to any qualification.

[66] See proceedings of New York, 1848,
pp. 36, 37.

[67] Such is the formula prescribed by the
Constitutions of England as well as all the
Monitors in this country.

[68] See Mackey's Lexicon of
Freemasonry, 3d Edit., art, _Ballot_.

[69] Book of Constitutions. Edit. 1755, p.
312.

[70] See Mackey's Lexicon of
Freemasonry, 3d Edit., art. _Ballot_

[71] Except when there is but one black
ball, in which case the matter lies over
until the next stated meeting. See
preceding Section.

[72] Masonry founded on Scripture, a
Sermon preached in 1752, by the Rev. W.
Williams.

[73] That is, advance him, from the
subordinate position of a serving man or
Apprentice, to that of a Fellow Craft or
journeyman.

[74] This is also the regulation of the Grand
Lodge of South Carolina.

[75] Proceedings of Grand Lodge of New
York, for 1845. He excepts, of course, from
the operation of the rule, those made by
dispensation; but this exception does not
affect the strength of the principle.

[76] Preston, edition of Oliver, p. 12
(U.M.L., vol. iii.,p. 10).

[77] Transactions of the G.L. of New York,
anno 1848, p. 73.

[78] Edition of 1723, page 71 (U.M.L., vol.
xv., book 1, p. 71).

[79] Preston, p. 48 (U.M.L., vol, iii., p. 40).

[80] Const. New York, 1854, p. 13. The
Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of
England (p. 64) have a similar provision;
but they require the Brother to express his
wish for membership on the day of his
initiation.

[81] Preston, Oliver's Ed., p. 71, _note_
(U.L.M., vol. iii., p. 60).

[82] See Oliver, note in Preston, p. 75
(U.M.L., vol. iii, p. 61).

[83] Oliver's Preston, p. 162 (U.M.L., vol.
iii., p. 135.)

[84] See Anderson's Const., 3d Edit., 1755,
page 303.

[85] Preston, Oliver's Edit., p. 89 (U.M.L.,
vol. iii., p. 72).

[86] Preston, Oliver's Edit" p. 90 (U.M.L.,
vol. iii., p. 73).

[87] Book I., chap. iii.

[88] Proceedings of Louisiana, an. 1852.

[89] Preston, Oliver's Edit., p. 76 (U.M.L.,
vol. iii, p. 62).

[90] Ibid

[91] See Mackey's Lexicon of
Freemasonry, _in voce_.

[92] Constitutions, Second Edition of 1738,
p. 154.

[93] Proceedings for 1853.

[94] Proceedings for 1847.

[95] The right to visit is restricted to once,
by many Grand Lodges to enable him to
become acquainted with the character of
the lodge before he applies for
membership.

[96] Blackstone, Introd., Di.

[97] For so we should interpret the word
"honeste."

[98] I have treated this subject of expulsion
so fully in my "Lexicon of Freemasonry,"
and find so little more to say on the
subject, that I have not at all varied from
the course of argument, and very little
from the phraseology of the article in that
work.

[99] In England, ejection from a
membership by a subordinate lodge is
called "exclusion," and it does not deprive
the party of his general rights as a member
of the fraternity.

[100] Lexicon of Freemasonry.

[101] Phillips, on Evidence, p. 3.

[102] Chief Baron Gilbert.

www.mybebook.com

Imagination, makes, creation